Bill Gates announces Green Tech Fund to Make Renewables Viable

Notes on: “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
– with a view to making it more persuasive to open-minded, but relatively ignorant of the evidence, seekers of truth about human CO2 emissions.
11/29/15
Applause Section:
– Nice attention-grabbing intro.
– Nice sound-bites from genuine scientists
– British accent of narrator very good: 1) other British people find American accent annoying; 2) Americans’ ears will perk up and listen more carefully to the “different” sound (used in advertising all the time – little kids or a woman with a husky, little boy voice, and British accents – we LIKE that sound, unless overdone … or snobbish-sounding).
– Use of term “lies” is GREAT – it is true and it is a powerful word.
– Shikwati quote at [7:09] very powerful – “… African dream is to develop…”
– And the African plow-and-ox segment is VERY effectively juxtaposed with following video of bustling developed world city
– passim clips of airliner flying overhead bringing 911 to mind = GOOD. Don’t take out if someone says, “poor taste.” It nicely, silently, reminds us that something else (here, Isl@ur momisuglym) and not “climate change,” is a real threat to the world.
– Ian Clark is excellent, “rock star,” teacher – good to feature him much (if do a revised, shorter, more succinct, version of this video).
OVERALL – Full of much good information. What is needed is a brand new video – shorter, different music. The CO2 storyline a bit less rambling. This video is a fine REVIEW for already well-informed viewers (who know enough to correct any small omissions/slightly mis-stated parts. LEAVE OUT THE SOLAR PART and the HERE’S OUR THEORY OF CLIMATE part (from about 28:00 on). Not strong argument – at least, not yet. Good speculation, unlike AGW, reasonably plausible speculation, but, still just speculation.
@ur momisugly Future Film Maker:
Remember: the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGWers. They have not yet made a prima facie case. You dignify their conjecture by countering it with conjecture of your own. Don’t go there. You only muddy the water. Stick with the basic, data-backed, facts: e.g., CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle; CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED; and the like.
[00:27] Add Name/Title of speaker (not leave until second appearance of speaker).
Comment: Otherwise, “Who is this dude?” (= “who cares what he says”) is all audience will think.
[00:35], [00:41], [00:45], [00:50] “ “
[00:50] Corrected script: “[Anthropogenic global warming advocates say that] if the CO2 goes up… . *** The fundamental assumption of the whole theory of [conjecture about] climate change … .”
Comment: Without first correction, it is less clear and audience may mis-remember Dr. Ball’s remark as supporting AGW (even though his overall remarks clearly do not). Dignifying AGW with the word “theory” is inaccurate and lacking the scientist’s precision needed to make the speaker more credible to a technically saavy audience member’s mind. AGW is not a “theory” as science defines it. AGW does not even rise to the level of a falsifiable “hypothesis.” It is pure conjecture. This is a “keep your WHOLE audience in mind” edit: both non-tech and technical people will be listening.
[1:10] Manmade Anthropogenic global warming … is no longer just a theory about climate …
Comment: To be persuasive with those under 60 or so, gender-neutral terms should be used whenever possible; AGW should not be dignified with the term “theory,” it gives unspoken, but powerful, legitimacy to the AGWer’s fly-in-the-face-of-the-data speculation.
[1:49] [1:55] [3:14] [4:10], [8:15] and passim — “… manmade human made or otherwise;” “manmadeanthropogenic global warming…” Note that it is not the scientists, the intellectuals, who use the sexist term…, but the narrator.
[2:00] REPLACE Henry Mancini/”Pink Panther” sounding muzak music – sounds dated and to a younger person, just “weird” (not in a cool way).
[3:19] “… scientific basis for the theory is crumbling [ there is no scientific evidence for the speculation of global warming].”
[4:48] (Paul Reiter) – “… bibliographies… there are quite a number of dozens of non-scientists …
[5:35] “… a theory unsupported conjecture about climate … “
[6:20] ADD to Patrick Michael’s quote about jobs depending on global warming, specific industries: ”wind turbine manufacturers such as Siemens,” “solar cell makers such as __.”
Note: For such add-in script, USE YOUNGER SCIENTISTS (under 35) – The older, wiser, look is GREAT, but, need to add 3 younger ones to keep the keep the film from appearing (to under-30 audience almost-not-listening-to-you members) to be “just a bunch of old guys who aren’t up on the latest.” MOST audience members, young and old, will not need the younger “look,” – but, this particular demographic does.
[6:45] “… spitting fury…” – INSERT: video clip of an AGWer “scientist” harshly criticizing a skeptic scientist
[~7:52] “… heretics… “ – ADD in (use one of the younger, added, scientists) a line or two about “den1ers” here.
[10:16] REPLACE the 1920’s jazz music (yes, it was before “Let It Snow” in time as was the Medieval Warm Period before the “Little Ice Age” – but it is nonsensical – use instead, music from that era to “sound Medieval” (lutes and dulcimers)) – even “Let It Snow” is a bit jarring – better to use 1700’s merry-sounding melodies on fife and drum and the like.
[10:48] GET RID OF THE GENUFLECTING BY THE SCIENTIST. Oh, boy. While I personally think what he did was just fine (though I do not do this myself), it is not at all a help to persuade the bulk of the audience and likely to undermine his credibility (and the film’s) with many.
[10:58] GET RID OF “We’re Having a Heatwave” – this was a tune which nicely describes a real heat wave in the U.S. in the 1950’s, but NOT for Medieval times.
Re: Church as stage: A bit is okay, for the wealth due to warmth of medieval time funded grand buildings, but, better to use a museum or other lovely building… or artwork depicting medieval prosperity as backdrop. TOO MUCH CHURCH (for this type of audience)
[11:25 ] Back off and show ALL of climate history chart – need for perspective for it would show (and quite persuasively, I think) just how relatively cool temperatures are now. The stair steps get lower and lower as time progresses, never recovering the warmth of the past.
And the chart itself is too crude.
[11:50] Re: polar bear adaptation – ADD: “Thus, even if the human CO2 speculation turned out to be correct, it isn’t really a problem.”

[12:01] GET RID OF THE 1960’S MUZAK! — Need some rock!! Here, could use from 12:01 through the industry busy-busy-busy scenes – e.g., Eddy Van Halen track from “Panama” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxA4WgIZmO8 – Yes, Mr. Van Halen is from my era, however… when we got to talking about good guitar players, I asked the young man under 25 serving me at Red Robin not long ago whether he had heard of Eddy Van Halen and he lit up, “Oh, yeah!” (big smile) So, even if the rock isn’t the latest, good classic rock will do.
[12:01 – fade in rock guitar music in under narrator] “… the culprit is industrial society.” [by here, music almost drowning out narrator, then, music only] CUT OUT ALL NARRATION – just use video (too much talking overwhelms …) WITH GUITAR – yea!  until…
… [12:39] … Narrator back (over music, faded): “Industrial progress has changed our lives. But, has it also changed the climate?”
[12:41] “According to the theory of manmade conjecture about human CO2 and global warming, …”
[12:52] (P. Michaels) “… most of the warming …” – “… hasn’t looked at the basic numbers closely examined the data.”
Comment: Leave out “most of” – this un-proven qualification of his statement greatly weakens his argument. There is no evidence that ANY of the 1900’s warming was caused by human CO2. Only speculation. – Remember: this video is about PERSUASION, not subtle nuances like, “Well, in laboratory conditions, CO2 seems like it might cause a little warming; not proven, but, we just can’t say for sure it doesn’t do SOMETHING.” Yeah, well, the burden of proof is STILL on the AGWers to prove CO2 DOES significantly drive the climate of the earth. This is not the venue for speculating by lukewarmers.
Better to use “data,” than “numbers” – to better underscore the lack of evidence for human CO2 as a driver, i.e., the data does not support AGW at all.
[13:35 – 14:18 and at 14:39] Great narration and scientist testimony – need to BACK OFF FOR LARGER PICTURE VIEW OF CHART.
[14:48] (Dr. Ball) “Temperature went up until 1940 [. When Before this, CO2 production was relatively low. … and then in the post-war years … human CO2 production just soared, the temperature was going down.” After WWII, human CO2 production was increasing significantly,{pause – for – emphasis} but the temperature was going {short pause and emphasize next word} DOWN.” Dr. Ball in general needs someone to write a script for him to memorize (or read from teleprompter) – “fireside chat” style is NOT appropriate for this type of production. Need to be SUCCINCT and POWERFUL in words and in expression (volume, tempo, etc…). He has good content, though.
[15:08] (Dr. Ball) “In other words, the facts did not fit the theory claim.”

[15:28] Shorten other remarks/narration to INSERT: clip from Leonard Nimoy 1978 video sternly warning of the coming ice age (take the {gap} out to use link): https://www.you { } tube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock
[15:35-16:35] Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is going to do more to confuse than to enlighten. Just hit the high points: 1) human CO2 is tiny percent of total CO2 which is tiny percent of total atmospheric gases; 2) WATER is 95% of total and, to boot, has evidence proving it drives climate. There is only speculation that CO2 boosts that effect in the open system we call “earth.”
[17:10 – ~17:40 “… if it weren’t for greenhouse gases water vapor… greenhouse gas water vapor…” … “warming should be highest if it’s greenhouse gas CO2 that’s causing it… .”
Comment: This section about “greenhouse effect” needs to be re-done. Water vapor is the only KNOWN effective “greenhouse gas.” This creates more confusion about the role of CO2 than clarity. Then, CO2 needs to be stated explicitly as the alleged cause, for that is what the AGWers are falsely asserting (to, thus, limit human CO2 emissions and sell more windmills, etc…).
[18:00 +] John Christy bio – HENRY MANCINI-type MUSIC NEED TO BE REPLACE WITH ROCK. – Nice teaching sequence… however, need to replace “theory” with “[notion] that climate models are expressing… .”
… With some criticisms, the film was fine from here until about 28:00 when Piers Corbyn starts to talk about his sun-weather predicting. After that, the film’s content quality deteriorates. (See my remarks above under “OVERALL”).
THEN, film gets back on track with insights about politics, anti-consumerism, then, about ice caps, etc… .
This comment is getting too long, so I’ll stop.
If I were actually going to be involved in writing for/producing a “revised version,” I would take the time to keep on going … .
Hope this was of interest to you, Knute. Your own observations would be just as good or better than mine. Thanks for paying me the compliment of asking. You’re a rare treat.
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
P.S. I used a lot of bold, italic, and strike html code – likely blew some. I hope you can understand what I wrote in spite of any blown html tags.