Before the Flood of Boredom

dicaprio-private-jet-1024x5791

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

I watched the new Leonardo DiCaprio climate epic so you don’t have to. The following 5 minute summary will save you an hour and a half of your life which you will otherwise never get back.

Quite apart from DiCaprio racking up an impressive number of air miles, in my opinion the video contained nothing new or exciting. The scariest moment was President Obama insisting that the Paris agreement is only the beginning of the pain, but we kind of knew that anyway.

Dated content, tired rehashed conspiracies. The most likely prognosis is a rapid one way journey to the digital graveyard.

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Before the Flood of Boredom

  1. So in other words this epic is certain to wind up in every Primary and Secondary school curriculum like the AlBoreP0rn

    • So true. The powers promoting the faith is man-made-global warming are everywhere and appear unstoppable. It now appears impossible to stop this grand delusion from going on indefinitely.

      • I don’t understand why the source of the problem matters? If it’s man made or the earths natural cycle, things are looking grim for humans in about two decades. We have the solution reguardless of the problems source. It is certain that there is a problem. Now we need to take action.

      • Blake brewer (Not His Real Name) says “things are looking grim for humans in about two decades.”

        But NOT looking grim for humans right now? Billions of people are on the verge of starvation but that’s not “grim”. Something you suppose will happen in two decades will suddenly make things “grim”. Or at least grimmer.

        “We have the solution reguardless of the problems source.”

        There is no WE and I don’t particularly like your solution (reducing human population by sterilization rather than war and starvation).

        “It is certain that there is a problem.”

        Inescapable. Right now my problem is 26 letters in the alphabet and only 10 fingers so I have to move my hands to type a response. Other problems include idiots commenting on WUWT.

        “Now we need to take action.”

        There is no WE. As for me, my next action is to read the next comment and hope it is more intelligent.

        Anyway, I appreciate your comment and look forward to more from you.

      • Blake brewer

        November 1, 2016 at 8:16 am

        I don’t understand why the source of the problem matters? If it’s man made or the earths natural cycle, things are looking grim for humans in about two decades. We have the solution reguardless of the problems source. It is certain that there is a problem. Now we need to take action.

        Blake,
        The source of the problem is highly relevant. If the source is Nature, and we attempt to do anything to modify/control it, we could, in our hubris, do more damage than would have otherwise happened. The only belief in a need for action comes in the belief that it is Mans doing rather than Manns doing

      • We needed to take urgent action 20+ years ago as well. If past dire predictions didn’t come true (New England kids won’t know what snow is, NYC west freeway underwater, polar ice cap gone, hurricanes pounding the east coast, polar bears disappearing and on and on) why does Blake and the CAGW crowd hang on every word Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann and the rest of them say when they have clearly been wrong to the point of it being a brick shy of criminal? All of those things mentioned were already supposed to come to pass. When does the statute of limitations run out on credibility? Also, I see NO evidence that a warming planet is harmful. I think global cooling is a worse threat to everyone on the planet. The planet itself doesn’t care one way or the other.

      • Yes, in two thousand years people will still be making sacrifices to be saved from Sio-Doo and his evil.

      • Sofa King Bueno says “Wattsupwiththat.com = Anti Climate change blog”

        Your meaning is unclear. I doubt that blogs can cause or prevent climate change although I suppose there’s no harm trying.

      • @ Michael 2

        It appears your understanding of a thesaurus and dictionary are what’s making your understanding unclear. ‘Anti’ is used as a preposition, adjective or noun, where as ‘prevent’ is used as a verb

      • Sofa King Bueno writes “Anti is used as a preposition, adjective or noun, where as prevent is used as a verb”

        With both signifying opposition to the object. Or in other words, asserting that this blog is an anti-climate-change blog means this blog opposes climate change. Many blogs oppose climate change but not this one. Writers on this blog observe climate change and report on it from time to time, as for instance the ENSO meter.

        But perhaps you meant something else; something so secret and non-obvious that only you can reveal it to the regular readers here.

      • @Michael2

        Um, (cricket sounds. . . symbolizing awkward silence) This blog is definitely a amateur climate change denial blog, as I already cited in my first post.

      • “Sofa King Bueno”, we don’t care if you are supported and brought to us by Rockefeller, di caprio, or just your own inability to cope with propaganda.
        Just do yourself a favor : cross-check sources.
        I mean, propaganda is fine and fair –“propaganda” is latin for “must be let known” –, whether coming from (supposedly) Koch or Rockefeller.
        Just cross-check.
        And DOUBLE ans TRIPLE cross-check when State backs [put anything here, from communist plot in Vietnam to global warming, from using drugs and asbestos to war on drugs and asbestos, …]. Everything coming from gov is not a lie, but it sure have a purpose : making YOU let the keepers of power act the way they want, with the big stick you paid them. So if you know you just don’t know, if you have to rely on unreliable source to make you opinion, the safest is just to have NO opinion and DONT back the government.

        Personally I may read anything, but certainly don’t trust a source whose very first word is a big fat lie (“leaked” Heartland documents were not, they were hacked away and one was even forged).
        I never forget that Wikipedia itself insist on being NOT reliable on controversial topics, too.

      • Sofa..
        If you choose to stay and dig into the huge resource of material here, I for one will consider you a decent human being. All I ask is for you to be open to learning. As was stated above, many sources such as Wkipedia are not reliable as they are written by politically motivated people. Very few people try to politicize the science here though, as this BB challenges everyone to back up their thoughts with data.. data… data..

  2. But it’s probably good for some nice favors down the line like no tax audits, special guest passes, and lots more face time and media points as the marketing consultants compute it.

  3. Dont worry, you might not see it but you can be sure they will show it to your kid in school. Inconvenient Truth still is even though we know better.

      • Barbara, your link says: “Wind generators need tons of copper, most dug up from enormous open cast mines that scar the landscape.”

        But almost any large scale electrical apparatus/generator also needs copper from the same source.

        and I’m pretty sure the hideous chemical elements mentioned are common in producing much other equipment… including computers and TVs

        The problem, if there is one, is manufacturing standards in China, where environmental controls are slack in all industries.

      • “Griff November 1, 2016 at 1:42 am

        The problem, if there is one, is manufacturing standards in China, where environmental controls are slack in all industries.”

        And that is why industry, and emissions of CO2, have been exported there so that people like you can feel smug that emissions in your country of residence (UK?) is dropping. I didn’t know CO2 was so smart that is would stop at a man-made border.

      • Griff: So large scale mining is wonderful if we’re talking wind turbines? Scarring the landscape is great if it’s to save the planet? You must destroy the environment to save it?
        If we’re going to have to mine no matter what, then let’s build power plants that make power 24/7 and forget putting up wind traps and hoping we catch something now and then. Why scar the planet for a inefficient method of producing energy? Not to mention how many million turbines and panels, millions of acres of land, millions of acres of mining, etc, it would take to produce adequate electricity to run today’s society. Sounds as inefficient as that “slash-and-burn” agriculture the enviros claimed to oppose. Low yields and destroys the landscape. So now we use “slash and burn” electricity?

      • Griff,
        Wind and solar power require materials like copper on a much larger scale than other forms of power generation because of their relative low density. For example, all the copper power lines needed to interconnect those millions of wind turbines and/or solar panels. But of course, most “green” leaders already know this, and they are ready to pull the rug out from under us just as soon as we abandon our thermal plants for “renewables”, because they are really aiming for massive population reduction. It’s the only way the elites can be at the top of whatever society is left.

      • Griff, so it doesn’t matter to you that we are drastically increasing the total demand for copper to build your windmills?

      • So if the problem in China, then why did the Obama Administration allow so many manufacturing jobs to be relocated there?
        Oh the Hypocracy…It reeks

        Time to vote for Trump (in one week)

      • Bryan, what is it that makes you believe that the president has the power to tell companies where they are permitted to build plants?

      • MarkW writes “what makes you believe that the president has the power to tell companies where they are permitted to build plants?”

        Being the Chief Executive Officer over federal lands. Congress can override I suppose, but until they do, the president is the decider of things on federal property.

      • Griff, you dullard. Windmills only produce for say 25% of the time. Therefore the amount of copper stuck in the generator on a stick in the middle of nowhere is four times what would be required to produce the same amount of electricity from a coal, gas, nuclear or hydro plant.

        Windmills are utterly unsustainable. I look upon them as valuable resources (copper, neodymium, etc) which have been placed utterly beyond use by hoisting them to the top of a stick in the wilderness to produce only a quarter of the energy they could produce by other means on the ground.

      • Mark,
        If the President has the power to redirect $500M to the coffers of the IPCC/UN for Climate Reparations without the consent of Congress, the President has the power to make the Business Climate of the US more enticing for business to remain here

      • Michael, private corporations are on private lands, not federal lands.
        Even if they were on federal lands, the president still couldn’t prevent them from leaving federal lands, either to go to US private lands, or out of the country completely.

      • This president has declared that he has the power to tell the IRS to ignore certain laws when it comes to enforcement of charities.
        I guess a future president could order the IRS to reset the tax tables to whatever he wants.

      • Hey, Reality, “Slash-and-burn” electricity would be Drax. Clearing out the Province of Carolina for the joy of millions of British subjects.

  4. Even the 5 minute summary is too long – though appreciate Eric taking one for the team. One interesting thing though is the reference to The Revenant (which, of course, was quite a good flick) – in my mind, it depicts the cold, harsh, joyless, un-healthy world he and his eco activist friends would like us to live in.

  5. I liked the little banner, “By 2060 Climate Change will cost taxpayers an estimated $44 Trillion USD”.
    Only if Hillary wins and the CAGW madness continues.

  6. What kind of review is this — you didn’t even say whether he was for or against climate change ;

  7. I agree that it was boring but I did get a bit of a laugh over the Hieronymus Bosch version of hell, complete with a wind and water mill. Apparently hell is powered by renewables.

  8. I’m for climate change, as long as it doesn’t go back to a glacial period, as it has at least eight times in the past million years. In fact, about 80% of the past million years has found Earth in glacial circumstances. For Canadians afraid of a little warming, during most of the glacial times Canada was totally uninhabitable. Ditto for the United States Eastern mega-cities area. During the inevitable next glacial beginning in about 10,000 years, Earth’s inhabitants will rediscover why Dante’s most inner circle of Hell is composed of ice, not fire.

    • ..I agree..Living in Ontario, Canada, I cannot understand how any Canadian could want it to get colder than it already is in the winter !!…As a great hero once replied to the German Forces surrounding his troops in Bastone….N.U.T.S. !!

  9. He only won the Academy Award ’cause he’s a true climate zealot; no way he would have won if he was a sceptic. This little endeavor is just an investment for another Academy Award in the future, an ego-inflated virtue-signalling exercise that all the PC luvvies crowd in the Academy cannot possibly fail to notice and reward him for.

  10. Perhaps stickers need to be put on billboards pointing out that this is a propaganda production.Hopefully a Trump victory (or a revolution) will expose Obama for the TRAITOR and LIAR he is. Once Obama is exposed as a LIAR, his role in the propaganda film should wake people up that there is something very fishy going on.

    • Obama is exposed as a fraud, liar and all things unnatural ‘High Treason’. Take Gitmo, which he said he’d close – still there. So many things, like war, on Libya and Syria, funding ISIS; the list too long for here. Watch him pardon the Clintons as he leaves office, so Trump can’t have them prosecuted.

      • Nothing personal, but this is nonsense. I’m no fan of Obama or Hillary (and I think Trump deserves the lowest circle of the abyss.) However, these aren’t “lies”, let alone treason. He was blissfully naive on Gitmo — but he’s not the first president to fall into that trap. It’s not a lie (unlike most of Trump’s claims which are lies.)

      • “However, these aren’t “lies”, let alone treason. He was blissfully naive . . . ”

        Sure, and if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, O blissfully naive one ; )

      • lorcanbonda and others who scoffed at me, watch this.

        “Stephen Pieczenik is an Advisor of TeleContinuity, Inc. Mr. Pieczenik served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker. Dr. Pieczenik was the principal International Crisis Manager and Hostage Negotiator under Secretaries Kissinger and Vance. During this time he developed conflict resolution techniques that were instrumental in saving over five hundred hostages in different terrorist episodes, including the Hanafi Moslem Seizure in Washington, DC, the TWA Croatian Hijacking, the Aldo Moro Kidnapping, the JRA Hijacking, the PLO Hijacking, and many other incidents involving terrorists such as Idi Amin, Quaddafi, Carlos, FARC, Abu Nidal and Saddam Hussein. In addition, Dr. Pieczenik helped develop negotiation strategies for major U.S.- Soviet arms control summits under the Reagan administration. He was also involved in advising senior officials on important psycho-political dynamics and conflict mediation strategies for President Carter’s successful Camp David Peace Conference. In 1991, Dr. Pieczenik was Chief Architect of the Cambodian Peace Conference in Paris. Dr. Pieczenik is a critically acclaimed author of psycho-political thrillers and the co-creator of the New York Times best-selling “Tom Clancy’s Op-Center” and “Tom Clancy’s Net Force” book series. He is also one of the world’s most experienced international crisis managers and hostage negotiators. His novels are based on his twenty years experience in resolving international crises for four U.S. administrations. Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an M.D. from Cornell University Medical College and a Ph.D. in International Relations from M.I.T.”

    • I wonder how long AFTER he leaves office we’ll hear how “Obama is finally being exposed for..” [FILL IN THE BLANK]

      Got a hot tip for ya. Everyone KNOWS. The trouble is those who oppose Obama mostly don’t vote while those who LOVE his lying ways vote in droves – as in “my minister drove the bus that took us to the votin’ place.”

      I know that Trump-lovin’ knee-jerkin’ working-class white guys think they’re the only ones who get Obama. But actually what they don’t get is that it ain’t Obama, it’s the people who vote for him and the many, many others like him, that are the problem.

      Hillary! will likely win next week, and if she does it’s because too few Americans – even those who call themselves “conservative” – care enough to work within the system. Instead they fall for radio talk show host palaver that stokes them up but otherwise does nothing (except serve up advertising), or the fixate on some single issue like guns or abortion and litmus-test the hell out of every Republican candidate. Or as in the present case they fall for a demagogue who’s just the latest in the long line since Alcibiades riled up the lower-caste Athenians.

      Meanwhile the Dems have this great system: just keep your constituents stupid, scared, poor and on the dole, and they’ll show up to vote every time.

      But you folks just go right on “exposing the truth about Obama.”

      Everyone needs a hobby.

      • lorcanbonda “Nothing personal, but this is nonsense”. Obama signs over more drone killings than Bush, there is plenty of documented evidence that shows how he knows he as Head of State is responsible for funding ISIS in Syria. So is Clinton and her record in Lybia, for one example, with ambassador Stevens and staff deaths, is also well documented and very serious, in need of court examination. Yet the lies continue, just as they do on climate. These scams are interrelated, both arising from the UN desire for world governance, among a number of other agendas the elite impose.

      • “These scams are interrelated, both arising from the UN desire for world governance, among a number of other agendas the elite impose.”

        What are some of the specific attempts at world governance that the UN has made? Other than pushing a for a carbon tax and the Paris agreement on CO2 reductions – which are NOT world governance, by the way.

      • Chris asks “What are some of the specific attempts at world governance that the UN has made?”

        That is one of the silliest questions I have ever seen.

        The United Nations is itself an attempt at world governance; therefore, everything (or nearly everything) it does constitutes attempts at world governance.

      • Bill P,

        “But actually what they don’t get is that it ain’t Obama, it’s the people who vote for him and the many, many others like him, that are the problem.”

        Not logical, sir. If the people elected are not a problem, those who elect them are not causing a problem.

        I suggest you stop conflating IQ with virtue . . disconcerting as that may seem.

      • “Stephen Pieczenik is an Advisor of TeleContinuity, Inc. Mr. Pieczenik served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker. Dr. Pieczenik was the principal International Crisis Manager and Hostage Negotiator under Secretaries Kissinger and Vance. During this time he developed conflict resolution techniques that were instrumental in saving over five hundred hostages in different terrorist episodes, including the Hanafi Moslem Seizure in Washington, DC, the TWA Croatian Hijacking, the Aldo Moro Kidnapping, the JRA Hijacking, the PLO Hijacking, and many other incidents involving terrorists such as Idi Amin, Quaddafi, Carlos, FARC, Abu Nidal and Saddam Hussein. In addition, Dr. Pieczenik helped develop negotiation strategies for major U.S.- Soviet arms control summits under the Reagan administration. He was also involved in advising senior officials on important psycho-political dynamics and conflict mediation strategies for President Carter’s successful Camp David Peace Conference. In 1991, Dr. Pieczenik was Chief Architect of the Cambodian Peace Conference in Paris. Dr. Pieczenik is a critically acclaimed author of psycho-political thrillers and the co-creator of the New York Times best-selling “Tom Clancy’s Op-Center” and “Tom Clancy’s Net Force” book series. He is also one of the world’s most experienced international crisis managers and hostage negotiators. His novels are based on his twenty years experience in resolving international crises for four U.S. administrations. Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an M.D. from Cornell University Medical College and a Ph.D. in International Relations from M.I.T.”

  11. …Without the Democrats (socialist liberals) controlling the White House and / or congress, ALL this “Green Machine” B.S. will die a very sudden death…VOTE TRUMP !!

  12. Love your humor, Eric, thanks, it cheered me up. Rubert Murdoch owns VICE news and a whole lot of subsidiaries, and this is how he brainwashes hipsters, which helps him in his elite ventures with George Soros. Watch VICE put jet setter hipster Leo on, hipsters all celebrating in the VICE studio together. I am not ashamed to say I used to be a hipster, but 40 years later I would be ashamed to be one. See ‘VICE’s Fall From Counterculture Hipster Rag To Neoliberal Mouthpiece’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVLVWmVa5U&feature=youtu.be

  13. …I really wish these “Green Eco-Loons” would tell me in what century do they think the climate STOPPED changing ?? I keep asking, and they keep walking away without giving an answer !! Maybe Griffy will know…or make something up at least…….lol

  14. I also think Leo is a really good actor. And I can sympathize with his need to have more meaning in his life than pretending to be other people.
    That’s all the positive input I have on him.

    • He is very talented, no question, but The Revenant was nowhere near his best work (not that the plot and script gave him much to work with). The whole thing – his activism during the filming, winning the award, the acceptance speech and then this follow-up, all seem, well, scripted. Would he have won the Oscar if he was a sceptic? Would he have been allowed the platform of an Academy Award acceptance speech to say ” AGW is BS!”? You know the answer to that, don’t you? Notice how few prominent artists come out and announce support for Trump? Or as sceptics? It’s because they know it would be a death knell on their careers, the far left PC / right-on brigade would see to it that there’s no awards and no more roles for you! Same as in academia, they self-censor and turn it into an unthinking echo-chamber where no dissenting views are tolerated, but puff pieces like Leo’s movie with the ‘correct’ views are praised and promoted beyond all reason.

    • Roy, was that some kind of anti-ad-hominem? Leo? A good actor? He’s really good at looking like he comprehends stuff. That steel-eyed glint, you know…that raised chin….the arms crossed in firm resolve…that ever-ever-so-slightly-raised chin…especially while cut-and-pasting with The Mann…[snip].

      Whoa. That’s some acting!

  15. DiCaprio does not seem worried about any imminent sea level rise.

    [http]://www.restorativeislands.com/blackadore-caye/

    [http]://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/fresh-concerns-raised-over-leonardo-dicaprios-eco-resort

      • Ric Werme wrote “Just use the URL without additional decorations like brackets”

        The brackets keep the message out of moderation. More than one or two URL’s will automoderate; depending on the particular blog in question as little as one URL link will prevent posting. Plus, clicking on links is generally a bad idea anyway since what you see might not be where the link takes you. I include in my comment the relevant text anyway (most of the time) and the URL is just there to cite my source so y’all don’t think I’m just making it up (someone else is making it up!)

  16. “When Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t starring in award-winning movies, he’s working to save the planet.”

    From what?

    [http]://www.ecowatch.com/leonardo-dicaprio-unveils-groundbreaking-eco-resort-in-belize-1882025721.html

  17. Photosynthesis: Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2 into Food/Oxygen – the Foundation of Life on Earth. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall & save lives. The Earth is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.

  18. Jeroen Bosch / Jheronimus Bosch / was a Genius painter, born 150 years or so before Rembrandt , I recently saw a lot of his paintings in the great Exhobition in the city of “Den Bosch” , or ‘s Hertogenbosch which is the offical Dutch name. Well: Di Caprio how dare you use this Genius in your Climate Change propaganda!

    • More suitable would have been this wintry LIA scene from Bosch’s younger 16th century compatriot Pieter Bruegel the Elder:

    • JohnVermeer,

      Was at that exhibit too (is only about 100 km from where I live near the Dutch border): extremely interesting what he produced in that period…
      But I also, like Chimp, prefer Pieter Bruegel as my favorite…

  19. Thanks for the rehash Eric, if you ever make it to the Sleeping Bear area I’ll buy you a beer, or 3, at one of our fine local brew pubs, also have a guy down the road who smokes everything that used to be living, the turkey legs are out of this world.

  20. Pathetic intelligence-insulting propaganda! I shake my head that any real scientist (or actor) could think that this garbage speaks the truth!

    • Propaganda.

      Even 90% of the peer-reviewed studies are the same. Propaganda.

      Why? As Anthony said, Noble Cause Corruption; People need something to “believe in” (even it is not true -not based on fact); some of it is obviously profession-based (you always protect your income), and sometimes I think these people just want everyone to agree with their position (they don’t even care about the issue or carbon taxes or whatever, but they just “need” you to agree with them).

      All common features of basic human nature. It is not always designed to push us toward the truth and the facts. .

  21. I know this may be boring for many of you who are regulars, but look. If we (and I include myself in this camp) are just being bombarded by friends and relatives who see this new DiCaprio video and cannot stop wailing about what a pickle we’re in…where can we go to learn how to silence these doomsday predictors. What evidence can I use to show that the deniers are NOT all Koch brother operatives, and that legitimate scientists are NOT all in agreement. Where are the consensus papers with reputable people refusing to sign onto the hysteria. I’m not purposefully being lazy, but I think someone must have a comprehensive bibliography of writings that can put the controversy into proper perspective. Something weighty that I can plop down in front of my friend/relatives/acquaintances and and say…Read through this first!

    • I have been a scientist for 40 years. You have no clue what you are talking about. 95 % of all scientists believe climate change is enhanced by human activity. You are not educated enough to determine real science from junk science. Sad. You will be the first to feel the effects and that’s good.

      • You’re a scientist, and yet the first rebuttal you make is an appeal to authority? What’s YOUR education? Scientist of what?

        And since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, I’m a chemical engineer, and practicing for +20 years. 100% of the chemical engineers I know believe that while CO2 can enhance warming (to the tune of 2-3W/m2) it’s not nearly enough to even be seen when the net heat flux on the planet is around 450 +/-15W/m2 (that’s smaller than the measurement error in case you missed that).

        What makes chemical engineers special? Because we all had to grind through some, while horrible, intensive classes like fluid mechanics, heat and mass transfer, transport phenomena, physical chemistry, reaction engineering, process control, and chemical thermodynamics. Does any of that seem like it could be weather or climate related?

        Have a look at the American Physics Association discussion on their Statement on Climate Change. Read about what prompted it. You’ll see that quite a few physicists and even Nobel Laureates quit the association when the statement said that it’s “incontrovertible” that AGM is happening. “Incontrovertible” is a word that no scientist uses.

        I would love to feel the effects of a warming planet. And that’s the real crime. Can you point to ONE SUSTAINED and DETRIMENTAL change that’s a result of climate change? And we want to punish the least-fortunate people on the planet by jacking up the price of energy…so that “scientists” like you can feel good that we tried to keep the planet in relative stasis at an arbitrarily chosen point in time?

        I used to be a warmer, until I spent the last 7 years looking at data. And if you’re a scientist, I hope that you have both curiosity and educational background to look at and understand the data. I’m sure you’ll come around too. I haven’t met any scientist yet that hasn’t changed their mind when confronted with data.

      • Shane vanderhoff writes: “I have been a scientist for 40 years…. Sad.”

        How is it possible that a warmist can be detected by a single word? SAD. Why are scientists sad? That’s an emotion. Science has no emotions. It is what it is.

      • Being enhanced by human activity is not sufficient justification for anything.
        Very few of those scientists believe that CO2 is anything to worry about, much less redesign the world’s economy over.

      • Thank you Shane, because that is validated by the science community. Disturbed by the ignorance in these posts

    • Doug, When I first started looking into “Global Warming” I read “Don’t Sell Your Coat”, by Harold Ambler. I thought it was pretty good.

  22. It’s a pity he’s not campaigning for there to be a vote on what climate we want, or if we even want climate at all.

  23. I managed to watch about 26 min. of the garbage. Full of Appeals to Emotion, and all of their favorite Warmunist myths which have been debunked repeatedly, including their favorite; that skeptics/climate realists (except they use their favorite smear term for) are bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests. Sickening.

  24. I’m seeing already that the National Geographic TV channels are going to milk this (constantly airing it) until it’s teats turn to dust. Have no desire to see this ego inflating piece of c.r.ap.

  25. You are a total idiot. This is the most important issue of our generation. I hope you’re don’t reproduce

  26. After Leo’s breakout role in Titanic almost 20 years ago, where he ended up becoming a human Popsicle in the freezing North Atlantic water, you’d think he’d have a basic grasp of the fact that cold kills far more people than warm.

  27. A few weeks ago a Law Firm in the L.A. basin put out a press release that Leo was complying fully with the DOJ and European Agencies involved in the 1MDB money laundering fraud.

    However, the money, likely in cash that Leo got, several 100s of millions in Dollar currency, but likely in a southeast Asian currency, were handed out to Bon Ki Moon, Barak Obama, John Kerry and other “Friends” of Leo, not to mention financing his movie the “Wolf Of Wall Street”. I have faith that the Law Firm will keep proceedings in play for a decade or two long enough for the cash to “melt away into the depths” and be forgotten.

    Ja ja

  28. Leo obviously needs his ego STROKED a lot. There is no such thing for him as too much ego stroking.

  29. This movie was created to REMIND us of the knowledge we knew decades ago but did nothing to stop climate change. It was created to educate the public and show them how our government is rigged by big oil lobbyist.

    It wasn’t meant to be an entertaining action movie. DiCaprio did his best to make a movement, when no one else is. The interent should be a positive place to facilitate change for our future, not for people to feel their personal opinion is important, misleading them from the truth.

    • ‘DiCaprio did his best to make a movement’ – he certainly did! And damn but it is a STINKER!

    • 1) The climate isn’t changing.
      2) There’s no reason to stop it if it was.
      3) I love the way fascists assume that the only reason why the government isn’t doing what they want is because of a conspiracy by people with money.

  30. Might want to update the graphic. It depicts a learjet 85, program was cancelled last year about the same time as global warming

  31. Thank you Eric.

    Only, I didn’t really need you to watch the filth for me.

    Unless, you have an ulterior plan in motion; such as, documenting all of the errors, half truths, sophistry and mob manipulation, (religious and psychological manipulation).

    The Nat Geo group flooded many channels, (Nat Geo, Smithsonian, Animal Planet, Science, even the travel channel during automobile repair shows, etc.

    Before I muted the commercials, I heard enough DiCaprio blather to nauseate me for the rest of the century.

    And yes, the commercial trailers’ narrator, (DiCaprio?), was an incredibly pale echo of a David Attenborough. Lacking all credibility when pronouncing certain dooms, the narrator was less convincing than a muet penguin would’ve been.

    Oddly concurrent with the DiCaprio’s eco song and dance, there were a lot of horrible shows on the Nat Geo, Smithsonian, Science channels regarding alleged creature, ice, ocean, air disasters and dooms.
    I managed a few minute on one show that turned out to be Arctic and Polar Bear alleged specialists bemoaning the certain death of Arctic ice causing polar bear doom.

    Obligatory shots of starving, yet darn chubby, bears. Lots of film showing the plentiful yet disappearing ice bergs.
    Fortunately, I found episodes of ‘Car Fix’ and ‘All Girl Garage’; so I immediately swapped eco-loon sophistry for mechanical reality.

  32. I personally find it hilarious that liberal “Eco-Terrorists” around the world put there faith in someone that thinks the Chinook Winds in Western Canada are caused by Man Made Glo.Bull Warming !! LOL

  33. Last time I watched anything on NatGeo was a programme on Tiger sharks, which they claimed can grow as big as 25 ft. That’s when I turned off, and have never gone back..

    Facts are not important to NatGeo, you’re better off watching the Sci Fi Channel.

    • Even Great Whites only reach 17 ft. or so.

      I’ll be charitable and say that maybe the scriptwriter mixed up his tiger shark fact sheet with a whale shark fact sheet. 25 ft. is more in the alley of that docile filter-feeder.

  34. I wonder if Arctic temperature are telling us something?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    Does the warming have any impact on ice cover?

    How long before we at last agree that ice cover in the Arctic is not recovering, indeed, far from it.
    This may not be the first year with an “ice free” situation, but we are certainly headed towards the scenario in the next few years if the current trend continues. The science is not perfect and there is lots of exaggeration, but the observations are becoming more clear every year that ice cover is reducing. It will be interesting to see what effect the reduction on ice cover has on the weather in Northern Europe.

    • Oh, gee, the Arctic might get as ice-free as it was in the summers 6000 years ago, when the Earth was a degree or two C warmer than it is predicted to be by the end of this century.

      Which didn’t destroy the world.

      Which polar bears didn’t even take notice of.

      Which means SQUAT to our future.

      • When the Ice vanished, Polar Bears don’t disappear, they go to land.
        When the Ice vanished, Seals don’t disappear, they go to land.
        Polar bears thrive on ice because Seals, their primary food source, rear their young on the ice.
        Polar Bears will thrive on land in an Ice Free Arctic ocean because the Seals will also need to move to land to rear their young.

    • In a word, no. Arctic temperatures don’t tell us much, nor does sea ice extent, except that it has warmed some. Yeah, we knew that. “The ice is melting” makes for a great Warmist talking point though, because ice is something tangible. We can see it. Unfortunately, it’s a lagging indicator. It isn’t a “bellweather”, though Alarmists like to believe it is, and use it to gin up alarmism. It is also extremely variable, with factors like wind and currents affecting it far more than temperatures.

    • Gareth Phillips asks “How long before we at last agree that ice cover in the Arctic is not recovering”?

      I predict July 17, 2017 will be the day we agree; but I am putting no money on that bet.

      The problem is with your definitions. There is no we. What exactly constitutes “recovery”? What calendar year do you wish to establish as representing the exact proper amount of ice? C’mon, speak up, surely you have some sense of what constitutes “recovery”!

    • I see no reason to assume that the ice isn’t recovering.
      The fact that the recent El Nino caused more ice to melt isn’t in the slightest bit unusual.
      Nor are the lies being told about it.

  35. wow this site and people on it. incredibly sad and pathetic. Your domain describes this entire community perfectly. Good job on branding and marketing.

    • ToonKing, inspecting self in mirror, says: “wow this site and people on it. incredibly sad and pathetic.”

      Your judgement reveals more about you than me. I do not feel sad, most of the time anyway. I’m not looking forward to the next four years of the United States presidency but I don’t feel sad. That’s a leftwing, rightbrain phenomenon.

      “Your domain describes this entire community perfectly.”

      Quite right it does. I see DiCaprio complain about sea level rise and yet he builds this huge resort in Belize at current sea level. What’s up with that?

  36. Gareth,

    The Arctic was – at least in summer – frequently ice free during the “Holocene Climatic Optimum”, some 6000-7000 years ago:
    http://www.ngu.no/sciencepub/eng/pages/Whatsup_20_10_08.html

    What is never mentioned in the media is that the sea ice around Antarctica did grow as fast as sea ice around the Arctic did decrease:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    Only the last years there is a global drop, but it seems that there is something going wrong with the latest satellite data. Further, the extra huge EL Niño may have had a temporary effect…

  37. I noticed that NatGeo chose that night to also premier the second season of “Years of Living Dangerously”. So it was a full night of this nonsense. I guess it was too much to ask someone to sit through the whole mind-numbing blarney and write reviews. But it would be nice to see a summary of errors or misstatements for the next time someone brings up these shows as proof of CAGW.

  38. Actors are the worst zealots for any cause. They ‘pretend’ for a living and then have to pretend to be smarter than a pretender. Leonardo FullofCrapio is no different.

  39. Climate Change has been happening for thousands if not millions of years. Accept it. This is just another avenue for bad actors to find ways to make money on the backs of others by fear mongering. Take Y2K for example remember 1999 as we move into 2000. Nothing happened. Some good if not great environmental stewardship is happening out there right now. But the fear mongers have taken over again by bad actors. Do your research people, educate yourself. Please understand this thou. The oilsands in Alberta ,Canada is the worlds largest environmental , reclamation cleanup project. Its cleaning up dirty dirt or sand in this case that has been on the surface for thousands/ millions of years. Do your research on the reclaimed areas of the oilsands. You’ll find it hard to believe that the oilsands were even there.

    • Brian “Take Y2K for example remember 1999 as we move into 2000. Nothing happened.”

      Nothing happened because thousands of man-hours of programmer effort were expended to make sure nothing happened.

      There’s a big difference in examples. Y2K was known to be a serious problem because of 2 digit years being used in many financial systems around the world, USA in particular. Your eligibility for Social Security Benefits, for instance, would be denied because your birthdate is 80 years in the future.

      Within climate no similar sharp threshold exists; no moment when you go from happy to disaster, and no simple cause of all that disaster (two digit years).

      • What most people forget is that work on the Y2K problem did not start in the late 1990’s. It actually started back in 1970 when banks discovered the the programs they were using to calculate 30 year mortgages were giving really weird results.
        Maybe the general public finally became aware of the issue in the last year or two of the 20th century, but the programming community had already been working on it for years.

  40. Sigh.

    Do they ever stop to ask why there was a layer of ice 1,000 feet thick over NYC about 20,000 years ago?

    And,why did it melt?

  41. Leo could actually do some good for the world if he was the conduit to get the public discussions going about what is going on, or not going on, with the climate. Generating public support for policies that are going to lower quality of life unnecessarily is not helping the planet. Bringing leaders together to establish sensible transition plans away from fossil fuels makes sense but you have to have a sensible plan to do any good. The real threat to quality and length of life that needs attention is pollution, that is shortening lives now, but making energy more expensive is going to kill people also, so a sensible plan to move off fossil fuels has to take all that into account.

  42. Your totally wrong this was an excellent documentary with many new and shocking facts that a majority of the US population doesn’t know and the fact that your telling people to not watch is doing them a disservice. The first step is to get informed and that’s exactly what this film does, additionally it gives you many ways to actually help and make a change.

    • Robert Burkmar, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. You (and the entire “hope and change” crowd) seem to think that making a change is automatically good and desirable without at any point saying what exactly you are changing FROM and what you intend to obtain by change.

      I’m reminded of the movie “Time Bandits” where the time bandits are pursuing the most desirable object in the world without ever being told what it is.

  43. I hope they paid him enough to keep a straight face with Michael Mann. If he did that for less then 10 thousand, he is a fool.

    Thanks for the summary Eric Worrall!

    • I guess that shows either
      a) he is an outstanding actor to portray a serious aspect
      b) he is an utter fool and totally buys Mann’s words.

      Which is worse?

  44. He was great in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”. Seriously. It’s also the only in which I liked Depp.

  45. I was hoping for more scientific fact to be presented. Instead we get a discredit Climate Change apologist. There are things we can do that do not imperil the economy, such as Geo-Thermal residential systems that rarely get spoken of and do not require huge additional costs. But the bottom line is we could likely spend Trillions and not move the needle more than .5 to 1 degree. Issues like the barrier reefs decaying are alarming, but my question is, won’t these reefs establish themselves in otherwise colder areas that have been uninhabitable previously? Also, we know the earth was much warmer millenia ago, and yet life thrived, so why is the fact that the earth is warming all of a sudden complete doom? Will people be displaced? Sure, but that really is nothing new.

      • Sofa King Bueno says “Only 100,000 to 30 million years for reef biodiversity to form, no big deal”

        That is pretty much my thinking. It matters to those for whom it matters; for everyone else, not so much.

      • @michael2

        That means over a billion people who rely on the fish of reefs will not have their source of protein for the next 100,000 to 30,000,000 years

      • Sofa King writes “That means over a billion people who rely on the fish of reefs will not have their source of protein for the next 100,000 to 30,000,000 years”

        No worries then. The People of the Left have long asserted that too many people exist.

        “So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned”
        http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

        But of course it depends on who you ask. Some sources say the Earth can support only 2 billion people anyway; some even say less than that.

      • SFK you should learn to read. 100,000 to 30 million years is the time for a reef to form, this has nothing to do with time required for its rebirth should it die, or biodiversity.
        Quite the opposite, in fact : Many species only exist just because reefs (forest, river, swamp, …) come and go, live and die.
        Places that never change (such boreal forest) are very poor as a matter of biodiversity. But they can nonetheless be very good source of food, you know ?

      • @Paqyfelyc

        What you’re saying doesn’t have much relevance to what is being said.

        The real human beings who are going to be affected don’t have boreal forests in their areas and are usually lower developed places. Still real human beings mind you, which seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most of the sociopathic lunatics on this blog

        The fish that live in the reef area won’t be there any more because they wont have a habitat, and the habitat grows too slowly to recover

        “With growth rates of 0.3 to 2 centimeters per year for massive corals, and up to 10 centimeters per year for branching corals, it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).”

        http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral04_reefs.html

        ^^so no, the area will not recover, the people with be severely displaced, and in no way what so ever will there be enough fish to support the people in the area

      • Sofa King writes: “it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).”

        I’ll file that bit of trivia in my mind. It may become useful some day. If you have a specific point to make, and it is immediately relevant or more sure to be relevant in a human lifetime, now would be a good time to make it.

      • @Sofa King Bueno

        “a billion people”

        I don’t believe you. Show me the billion people who are about to lose their coral reefs?

      • Sofa King,

        The opinions on the cited site do not support your statements. There is nothing there to suggest that the coral reefs are falling, or will fail. Just, that there are industries and individuals that rely on them for commerce and enjoyment.

      • Michael 2, Steve Fraser, what you’re saying contradicts yourselves. Look at what you’ve said and you can see the contradictions.

        You don’t need a link to every single idea. It’s almost 2017, just because there isn’t a exact link specifying and laying out an exact fabrication of ones arguement doesn’t make an idealology true or false.

        Climate change cannot creditably be denied.

        If you have a question, go on the internet and find your answer, this isn’t grade school.

      • “I don’t know what’s up with that” wrote: “what you’re saying contradicts yourselves.”

        It can seem that way.

        “You don’t need a link to every single idea.”

        Who knew?

        “It’s almost 2017”

        So it is!

        “doesn’t make an idealology true or false.”

        Agreed. Ideologies are neither true nor false; they merely exist. Claims made in support of an ideology can be true or false.

        “Climate change cannot creditably be denied.”

        I hope someday to find someone that denies climate change so I can see what it is like.

        “If you have a question, go on the internet and find your answer”

        I seek knowledge from many sources. The internet is not a source; rather, it is a communications network by which I can retrieve information of varying but often doubtful credibility. A truth can be told only one way (to fully tell the truth that is); but lies are innumerable. The odds of finding the truth, and knowing it, are rather low using the internet.

        “this isn’t grade school.”

        Another statement of the obvious. In grade school you are told things, indoctrinated, and expected to believe everything you are told. Here is not grade school and people will judge your words however each prefers. So far you have not contributed much knowledge.

Comments are closed.