Existential Risks

From Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Some reflections on the movie Don’t Look Up.

If you haven’t seen the movie, it is worth watching (available on Netflix).

The movie is a satirical black comedy, with a large number of A-list actors. It’s about scientists giving 6 months warning of a comet striking Earth and mass extinction.  The story is about how politicians, the media, scientists, the public and space entrepreneurs react to this.  The Director, screen writers and lead actor (Leonardo DiCaprio) all say that it is a satirical film about climate change.

If you ignore for the moment that this movie is supposed to be about climate change, you can enjoy it for what it is.  The style is reminiscent of Dr Strangelove (but not nearly as good).  The A-list actors give entertaining performances, but I wouldn’t expect any of them to be nominated for awards (the most likely award will be for the theme song, sung by Ariana Grande).  The movie is fast paced, plays into amusing stereotypes, and is good fun.

However, if you are looking for some grand allegory for climate change, its communication, our failure to act, and a subsequent existential crisis, you will be sorely disappointed and may not even think that the film is funny.  The movie is about an existential risk on a time-scale of a few months, that you can actually see happening.  In spite of the rhetoric and declarations that every severe weather is caused by climate change, at the end of the day very few lives are being lost by extreme weather (let alone by manmade climate change).

There has been substantial discussion on twitter of the movie, with climate scientists saying that finally they feel heard, and feel vindicated by this attention that is provided to their plight of effectively trying to communicate the risk of climate change and effect their desired policies to prevent climate change. They seem to think that the moral of the movie is Believe Experts.

There is no scientific debate over whether the comet will actually strike Earth, when it will strike, or the catastrophic consequences. However, throughout the movie, every scientific institution ends up lying about the risk – the head of NASA, big tech CEO, government officials, and eventually the protagonist professor (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The only scientist who maintains their integrity is the female graduate student (Jennifer Lawrence), who ends up bagging groceries.  Trusting the experts doesn’t end up being such a good idea, when the end result is extinction.

The issue is what should be done about the comet strike. Here is where we find some meaningful analogies with climate change.  The more pragmatic choice is to use rockets to deflect the path of the comet away from collision with the earth; there is some confidence this can work based on experience with asteroids.  By analogy, the pragmatic climate change solution is to adapt, hang on to your nuclear power and develop better technologies.   The competing solution for the comet gets wrapped in the economic opportunity associated with rare metals in the comet, job creation and presidential politics.  The analogous climate solution wraps in all sorts of additional objectives such as environmental justice, job creation, anti-nuclear sentiments, anti-capitalist governance, punishing fossil fuel companies.  The problem is that the complexity of the competing solutions fails to address the original problem and causes new (and even worse) problems.

The movie isn’t about a simple battle between those who want to take action to address the problem and those who don’t. There’s a genuine lack of consensus scientists, government, etc.  as to what should actually be done about the problem. This is invariably the case when the the problem is multifaceted and the solutions are technically challenging.

The fundamental policy challenge of climate change is that it involves making changes now for the sake of preventing harms that occur largely in the future to people living in other countries. This challenge can be addressed by producing technological breakthroughs that make these tradeoffs less painful and progress easier.

It’s far more interesting to interpret this movie as part of the cinema of existential risk, rather than climate change.  Comets are a great topic for this, especially since they are much more difficult to deflect than asteroids.  Deflecting comets would be a great endeavor for the billionaire space cowboys (Bezos, Musk, Branson) to take on. 

And what about supervolcanoes? Does anyone have a plan for this?  These genuine existential risks fall outside of ordinary political conflicts.  Instead, we focus on the faux existential risk of climate change, with solutions that focus on first-world perceptions of environmental justice and punishing fossil fuel companies.

5 32 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 5, 2022 6:20 am

The differences are dealing with something that is 1. Real,, and 2. Workable solutions are being proposed.
With claims of CAGW, the mechanism is poorly understood, probably self limiting, and thus far, a benefit, not a cost.
”Renewables” are unworkable, embraced by virtue signalers and the innumerate, or cynical Luddites who want to collapse industrial society.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 5, 2022 7:51 am

The comet strike really is a simple situation. We have to act quickly or become extinct. That’s the kind of problem left-brained liberals like. It’s simple and unambiguous.

Global warming is nothing like that at all. The left-brained liberals can’t handle that so they insist on a simplified narrative, as much for themselves as for the public they’re trying to convince.

Also, covid is nothing like it either. The simplified narrative is “masks, social distancing, vaccines”. The official narrative did not include anything the citizens could do to improve their chances: lose weight, take zinc and vitamin d, get outside, get exercise. In addition, ‘they’ suppressed information about possible cures and prophylactics. So, we ended up with crappy vaccines that require booster shots every few months. We also witnessed physicians failing to treat symptoms and druggists failing to fill prescriptions. It’s obvious, to me at least, that the simplified narrative has resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

The simplified narrative, so beloved by left-brain liberals, is evil. Almost no human problems are as simple as a comet strike.

Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2022 8:04 am

Dr. Robert Malone, one of the inventors of the basic mRNA structure, estimates that the failure to authorize and use longstanding generics with low toxicity such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin has lead to approximately 500 thousand excess deaths in the USA alone.

John Tillman
Reply to  Stu
January 5, 2022 8:42 am

He didn’t invent mRNA structure. In 1989, he (lead author) and two others developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin).


Later work along this line made mRNA vaccines possible.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 10:09 am

Alexander Graham Bell and Guglielmo Marconi didn’t invent cell phones.

There comes a point where an individual will cross a threshold of human understanding and having opened the door, others can then pass through..

Whether intentional or not, forerunners are sometimes assailed for figuratively not navigating the globe in the ship which they built.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alan Robertson
John Tillman
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 5, 2022 1:45 pm

Nobody invented mRNA structure. It evolves.

Pat Frank
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 3:51 pm

Nobody invented iron, John. But that doesn’t obviate the creativity of inventing steel or in turning steel (or iron) to novel uses.

John Tillman
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 5, 2022 4:29 pm

I’m pointing out the incorrectness of saying that Dr. Malone “invented” mRNA. People writing that must not know what mRNA is.

He found a way to get viral mRNA-coding proteins into cells, opening up the possibility of mRNA vaccines.

Saying that he “invented mRNA” is simply gross ignorance, and lack of understanding the significance of what he really did. And of what mRNA vaccines are and do.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Pat Frank
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 9:58 pm

It’s more likely to be imprecise language, John.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 5, 2022 10:01 pm

Aside from which, the mRNA gene treatment is not a vaccine in any conventional sense.

The CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021 hide the experiment under the umbrella of normalcy.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 8, 2022 10:09 pm

Sure, we see highly complex, functioning codes arising from unguided natural processes all the time! LOL!

Bill Sprague
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 10:21 am

Dr. Robert Malone clearly has the credentials for his views regarding Ivermectin and HCQ to be take seriously and seriously considered, whether or not he technically invented the mRNA structure. Science and technology builds on the work of others, and Dr. Malone provided some of the foundation which subsequently made mRNA possible.

We are at a very dangerous point in our society when other views of covid treatment, origins of the virus, Global warming, etc are not allowed a full and complete public debate.

To quote the Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, ““I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” 

Steve Case
Reply to  Bill Sprague
January 5, 2022 10:54 am

If science can’t be questioned it’s not science
anymore, it’s propaganda – – – Aaron Rodgers

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Sprague
January 5, 2022 1:48 pm

He did not make mRNA possible. He contributed to development of an mRNA vaccine, by showing that lipids could enable mRNA to enter a cell and take over its ribosomes to make viral protein.

mRNA has existed for billions of years.

Yes, Malone, McCollough and the Great Barrington signers should all be heeded.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 6, 2022 5:35 pm

Dr Robert Malone owns all the patents of mRNA tech. I’d say he invented it…

John Tillman
Reply to  Ruleo
January 7, 2022 2:18 pm

No, he doesn’t. I’m all for Dr, Malone, but what his backers say about him are simply untrue.

Please refer to reality rather than hype, as Dr. Malone himself wishes:


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stu
January 6, 2022 7:49 am

No doubt many thousands of people have died because therapeutics already availble were attacked as being ineffective by the U.S. govenment. The U.S. govenment and Big Pharma , and Bid Medical, discouraged the use of therapeutics at every opportunity.

People had to sue their hospitals to allow them to use drugs like Ivermectin.

Yes, a lot of people have died unnecessarily, and this is an ongoing problem, as the authorities still empahsize vaccinations while saying nothing about therapeutics.

There are probably two dozens already-available drugs that have shown effectiveness against the Wuhan virus, and the U.S. govenrment won’t use any of them and doesn’t want any of us using them, either. Causing more senseless deaths.

Using therapeutics early would reduce the long-term adverse health effects of the Wuhan virus. I saw an article today saying the virus causes an increase in autoantibodies in the body and these autoantibodies attack the body’s own organs, and they have seen this condition last six months after the virus is gone from the body, and they have been seen it in all virus victims from those who suffered little or no symptoms to those who suffered serious symptoms.

The Wuhan virus is going to be with us for a while.

Now that Pfizer and others are producing new antivirals effective against the Wuhan virus, we will no doubt see these drugs promoted because these drugs make the companies lots of money, whereas, old established drugs don’t make them much money so they have no incentive to promote them. It’s apparently all about the money. Human lives come second.

Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2022 12:36 pm

err, there’s a lot more risk from simple stuff like Vesuvius/campi flegri and other active stratovolcanoes than guff about meteors.

But hey, people love being eaten by sharks, pirhanas crocs, twisters, and water worlds, disaster movies et al from Hollywood, headed by has been film stars.
It’s entertainment and you pay to view.

John Tillman
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 5, 2022 3:18 pm

Megavolcanoes do erupt more often than six-mile long asteroid or comet strikes, it’s true. But such an impact is still a real, if remote, threat. And more dangerous.

For one thing, megaeruptions have telltale signs. Hard to evacuate half a continent, but still, better than a space rock strike. A bolide that big would probably however be detected in time for Earthlings to divert it, if a system to do so were in place.

Seeing that such a system is available should be a priority of space programs, lest we go the way of the non-avian dinos, being large animals with very long generation times, ie megafauna vulnerable to extinction. Deep shelters for civil defense might also be indicated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
January 6, 2022 7:56 am

I read this morning that five small asteriods are going to pass near Earth in the next few days.

There is a lot of stuff flying around in space.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2022 10:15 am

I’ve gotten to a point where I’m rather hoping for one to hit us anymore. But not a small one.

Reply to  TonyG
January 7, 2022 5:33 pm

You can’t really advocate what you obviously can’t understand.
Any kind of major asteroid, such as the one that hit near Yucatan some 61million years ago. It was too close for comfort to sterilizing all functional animals an plant, but probably not bacteria and algae.

Reply to  Philo
January 8, 2022 8:24 am

That’s called “missing the point”

Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 6, 2022 3:19 am

wouldnt watch anything he makes on principal wouldnt give him a cent of my money

Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2022 10:06 pm

the whole covid hoax is for big pharma and Fauci to get rich
it has nothing to do with how to treat a pandemic
If they were serious then they would forget the RAT test and get everybody to have an antibody test
this would prove conclusively if you needed a booster shot
not this one glove fits all with Fauci crap vaccinees

Reply to  commieBob
January 6, 2022 6:58 am

I watched the movie “Don’t Look Up” from this perspective:

The purported threat of Catastrophic Human-made Global Warming (“CAGW”,
misnamed “Climate Change”) was never real – it was always a fiction, a very-scary
story fabricated by scoundrels and believed-in by imbeciles – wolves frightening
the sheep for political and financial gain. I knew this reality circa 1985, based on my knowledge of paleoclimatology and my energy expertise.
I studied these subjects for a further 17 years and formalized my opposition to the CAGW scam and intermittent grid-connected “green energy” nonsense in publications starting in 2002.

In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and I published:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

I modified my global cooling prediction in 2013:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

This global cooling is primarily solar-induced, driven by the end of very-weak Solar Cycle 24 (SC24) and the beginning of very-weak SC25, as we published in 2002, one year before Theodor Landscheidt’s 2003 global cooling prediction.

The phony CAGW scare was promoted using the propaganda tactics of Lenin and Goebbels – “don’t argue the facts, just shout-down and intimidate the opposition”.
In 2013 I accurately warned of the current cold-weather and energy-shortage crisis that is gripping Britain and Europe this winter, as follows. There was adequate time then to avert this crisis, but now it is too late, and many will suffer and die, especially in Britain and Germany where foolish/corrupt politicians have sabotaged their energy systems with excessive intermittent wind and solar power generation.

By Allan MacRae, October 31, 2013
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

My 2013 Open Letter was verified in 2021, with extreme cold winter forecasts and a green-energy-crippled electrical grid in Britain and Germany:

The similarities to the Covid-19 lockdown and “vaccine” scams are clear – the same deceitful Lenin/Goebbels propaganda tactics were used, and there is evidence that both scams were initiated and promoted by the same parties.

Also, prominent world leaders even linked the two, saying “To solve Covid-19 we have to solve Climate Change!”, an utterly false and foolish statement, not even credible enough to be specious.
While the Covid-19 virus is real, it was only dangerous in its original “Alpha” form to the very elderly and infirm, so it was only necessary to over-protect this at-risk population and let everyone else get back to work and school – that was the correct approach, as I published in 21&22March2020 and the Great Barrington Declaration published six months later. I reached this conclusion circa 1March 2020 but was reluctant to publish in the face of a barrage of “Covid-panic propaganda”. When my physician friend told me that his 600-bed hospital had been emptied of patients circa 15March2020 to prepare for a “tsunami of Covid-19 patients” that never arrived, I published my conclusions:
21March2020 – Allan MacRae
LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five. This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
22March2020 – Allan MacRae
This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.…
I emailed the following correct analysis to the Alberta government on 8January2021:

There is no real Covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 was only dangerous to the very elderly and infirm, and is similar in average mortality to other seasonal flu’s of recent decades.
The Covid-19 PCR test is not fit-for-purpose and provides many false positives.
Routine testing of asymptomatic people is a waste of resources and drives erroneous policies including lockdowns.
The Covid-19 lockdowns were never effective or justified. Harm done by the lockdowns exceeds by 10 to 100 times the harm from Covid-19. End all lockdowns now and do not lockdown again.
Simple, inexpensive treatments are known to save lives – Vitamin D, Ivermectin etc. Why are these treatments not being widely recommended and implemented by Alberta authorities?
The increase in deaths of the elderly in Winter is a well-established seasonal phenomenon. “Excess Winter Deaths” in the four Winter months routinely average about 100,000 per year in the USA and about 10,000 per year in Canada, as described on our 2015 summary of Excess Winter Mortality that includes the landmark Lancet study.

The Covid-19 vaccine developments were rushed and are not proven safe or effective and should NOT be taken, especially by the low-risk population – those under-65 or recovered from Covid-19. The two experimental Covid-19 vaccines that contain mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) are especially risky – due to unknown future side-effects, the risk-to-reward is far too high for the low-risk group. 

I published on 6February2021:

More on Covid-19 and the mRNA injections – they are NOT “vaccines”. These mRNA injections are experimental treatments – they are high risk and low reward.
I published against taking the mRNA injections long before I saw the following videos, based on fundamental scientific principles – a relatively mild disease, except for the very elderly and infirm, with a very low risk of dying for the vast majority of people, and a high (3%++) risk of severe complications now and later from the mRNA injections.
You don’t have to believe everything in these videos to be concerned about the very real high risk / low reward of the mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) injections.
For the record, I take the flu shots every year but I will not take the mRNA injections.
Regards, Allan

Uncontrollable Tremors
Bell’s Palsy or Guillain-Barre Syndrome
CDC: 181 deaths
The Covid-19 “vaccines”, especially the mRNA versions, have since proved to be highly toxic and ineffective, and have caused enormous harm and provided no significant benefit. I have estimated short-term deaths (within weeks of taking the shots) of very approximately 1 in 500, and others have estimated one-year deaths as high as 1 in 60 – either way, a disaster.

The longer term impacts of these mRNA “vaccines” are starting to appear, and include heart attacks, strokes, greatly reduced immunity to all forms of illness, resulting in chronic illness and reduced years-of-life.

Apologies for this long rant.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae in Calgary

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  commieBob
January 7, 2022 3:51 pm

The comet strike really is a simple situation. We have to act quickly or become extinct. That’s the kind of problem left-brained liberals like. It’s simple and unambiguous.

I always have to laugh about Bill Maher, one of the biggest “climate whiners,” when I recall how he claimed the Republicans were using terrorism to appeal to the “lizard brain” of the electorate, thereby degrading theri ability to think clearly.

News flash Bill, Democrats do the same thing – their Boogeyman is “Climate Change.”

The difference is, at least the Republican Boogeyman was real.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 5, 2022 5:15 pm

You’ve hit the nail on the head with your summary of CAGW. Succinct and spot-on.

“Don’t Look Up” gets a critics score of 55% (bad) and audience score of 77% (passable) on Rotten Tomatoes. I usually average the two ratings to get a rating that’s most meaningful to me. The 66% average is pretty bad, but not horrible. It’s probably worth watching when it comes out on free TV if you can record it so you can jump over any mindless or repetitive commercials.

Reply to  meab
January 6, 2022 5:37 pm

At family house member was watching it. I glimpsed 5 minutes and wanted to end my life.

You’re better off watching something like Cell Count.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ruleo
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 6, 2022 3:58 am

Renewable energy does not exist, as anybody knows that grasps the principle of entropy.

John Garrett
January 5, 2022 6:25 am

After what that dumbass DiCaprio has done to spread misinformation and cause panic, I’ll be damned if I’ll ever watch anything he’s connected with.

Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 7:03 am

Watch the movie. Despite your perceptions of DiCaprio, the movie exposes the awful greed of individuals who analyze everything from a perspective of personal gain. Politicians, media personalities, and giant technology interests are skewered. This may be how the law of unintended consequences reveals the truth to the masses that still believe the government/media/big tech conglomerate has our best interests at heart

Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 8:39 am

I’ve read an awful lot of bad reviews. Is it worthwhile for those of us in the unwoke resistance? Most of all, I want to be entertained. If it also scratches my noggin, so much the better.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 10:15 am

Don’t look up.
Don’t watch the movie.
Let the opinions of others decide for you, or not.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 5, 2022 10:44 am

Hey Jeffery P,
It sounds like you’ve already decided to treat yourself to a movie.
It’ll tweak your tweeter.

BTW, my earlier remark bounced off of your post and wasn’t intended as a criticism of your message, but was addressing that prevalent sentiment.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 5, 2022 11:01 am

Not knowing how somebody else’s tastes in entertainment align with my own makes asking for recommendations not too useful, don’t you think? Nevertheless, I rely on reviews to help me find something I want to watch. There’s too much out there and I have to do something. Maybe spend less time in front of the TV is the best option?

Reply to  Jeffery P
January 6, 2022 5:39 pm

I prefer horror and sci-fi. Would my recommendations help? lol

January 5, 2022 10:44 am

We hardly need films to understand all that!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 7:41 am

His film, The Revenant, was pretty good. About the mountain men. I loved watching a grizzly trying to have him for lunch, but he managed to roll down the hill and get away. Fun to watch- but not accurate according to a friend who has studied the history of the mountain men.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 5, 2022 8:24 am

As somebody who spent their adult life in the area the movie was filmed in I can say the movie was ridiculous. A typical hollywood production by people who have absolutely no idea of what real winter is like.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Terry
January 5, 2022 8:44 am

It was filmed in Alaska- though the story was about a real guy- who was in the American Rockies- never in Alaska. I see a lot of movies filmed not where the story took place. Like the Deer Hunter. The story was in PA, but I noticed when the men were in forests- it was some western forest.

Reply to  Terry
January 6, 2022 5:41 pm

Except it was filmed in winter and that river Leo swam in WAS frozen and that was REAL snow. How could they be anymore accurate to how “real winter” is than that?

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 5, 2022 11:16 am

Was a remake of Man in the Wilderness

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 10:12 am

Then, don’t look up.

The movie quite accurately portrays human foibles and social behaviors, as witness, ever so many comments in this thread.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 5, 2022 4:51 pm

Then don ‘t post it’s obviously triggering you.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  LdB
January 6, 2022 6:33 am

I’m just as free as others to state my opinion and if you don’t like it, then stuff it.

Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 10:32 am

even if I could get past Leon’s repeated singular character portrayal (kinda like the scientology guy), and the movie was entertaining (and worth 90 minutes of time), I would not risk the chance that my watching it would add $0.0001 to Leon’s bank account.

Steve Case
Reply to  DonM
January 6, 2022 3:28 am

That’s the reason I’ve never seen “An Inconvenient Truth”

Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 11:46 am

Theses Hollywood and rich climate change alarmists are all hypocrites of the highest order.

Climate activists invest in property on beaches they say are disappearing
June 15, 2021

The Washington Examiner story missed Leonardo DiCaprio’s very low-lying private island he’s developing in the Caribbean. DiCaprio is “one of the most active celebrities in the climate change movement.” He “produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change.”
https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/leonardo-dicaprio-house (see island pictures way down the page)

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws

Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2022 10:11 pm

DiCaprio is a hypocrite
I can fly in my private jet
do as I tell you not as I do

John Tillman
January 5, 2022 6:37 am

Disappointing to see Dr. Curry adopting the barbaric “singular their”.

The only scientist who maintains his integrity is the female graduate student”, please. Or “her”. But “their” is a plural pronoun.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 7:01 am

English has singular neuter pronouns, as well as masculine and feminine genders. They are “it, its and itself”.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 7:17 am

And “thou” in older English…

John Tillman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 5, 2022 7:31 am

While archaic, “thou” (second person singular, nominative case), “thee” (objective), “thy”/”thine” (possesive) and “thyself” (reflexive) still exist today. Just aren’t used much outside of religion, except to some extent in Northern England and Scotland.

Quakers use “thee” ungrammatically in the nominative.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Jeffery P
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 8:40 am

My prefered pronouns are your majesty/your highness.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 9:54 am

Majesty outranks highness.

Jeffery P
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 11:01 am

Thanks for the tip! Where does your royal majesty rank?

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 1:04 pm

Only the reigning monarch is addressed as “Your Majesty” Other royals are “Your Royal Highness”.

Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 10:35 am

mine is goddess.

please don’t insult me by referring to me as simply ‘god’.

Reply to  DonM
January 5, 2022 11:39 am

Are you sure I thought that was my wife’s title 😇

Reply to  Notanacademic
January 7, 2022 11:25 am

that title can be shared.

but definitely don’t insult your wife to comparing her to a lesser god.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 9:42 am

Correct usage would suggest that “his” is the neuter pronoun for this application. “her” also works, but just a little less effective. Just because a bunch of ignorant gender confused people keep demanding that the english language be changed so that they don’t feel uncomfortable, doesn’t mean we should indulge them.
“it” is only used for plants, animals and inanimate objects.

John Tillman
Reply to  Timo, not that one
January 5, 2022 1:11 pm

“His” used as a collective pronoun arguably isn’t really in neuter gender.

“Her” would work in the case of the female scientist.

“It” is sometimes used for human babies.

But you’re surely right about the insane assault on the English and Spanish languages. Only a person with multiple personality disorder or a tape worm should ask others to refer to him as “they”.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 9:04 am

This usage goes back to Shakespeare at least.

John Tillman
Reply to  Felix
January 5, 2022 9:52 am

The only such citation I’ve scene is from Hamlet, but it isn’t really an instance:

“‘Tis meet that some more audience than a mother — Since nature makes them partial — should o’erhear the speech.”

In this case, the plural pronoun is understood to refer to mothers in general, not to the preceding noun “mother”.

Do you know of a clearer instance of “singular they” by Shakespeare?

Emily Dickinson used “they, theirs and themself” in reference to “anyone” in an 1881 letter. Doesn’t make it grammatical. People are often ungrammatical in conversation and correspondence.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 12:26 pm

No, I’ve seen the reports and their quotes but do not remember any more.

John Tillman
Reply to  Felix
January 5, 2022 1:13 pm

Thanks anyway. That’s the only case I’ve seen, and it isn’t really an instance.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 1:28 pm

Glad to see someone else challenging this silly new “gendered” language fad.. It wouldn’t hurt for people to acquaint themselves with Orwell’s, ‘Politics and the English Language‘ … especially his six points:

  • Excise stale figures of speech. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print. …
  • Value simplicity. …
  • Cut meaningless words. …
  • Use active voice. …
  • Use English terms. …
  • Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous

Following these simple rules would certainly help with the hyperbole filled text found in most “climate” science writing.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 5, 2022 1:53 pm

Grammar has genders, ie masculine, feminine and neuter. People have sexes, ie male and female, plus some rare extra chromosomes.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 2:46 pm

Exactly so! I’ve been stressing that all over the internet for years. Gender is an unnecessary neologism popularized by psychologists to add complication where there was none and legitimize their verkakte theories on sex. I was cancelled by YouTube for expressing that simple fact.

plus some rare extra chromosomes.

Even those have only two sexes … Klinefelter syndrome (an extra X chromosome) is the male manifestation and Turner syndrome where a female is missing or partly missing one of the two X chromosomes. This is hardly evidence for a nearly infinite number of sexual anomalies.

Note … Google is now censoring access to these facts.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 5, 2022 4:06 pm

While very rare, there are others.


Classical disorders of sex chromosome are Klinefelter syndrome, XX male, XYY male, Turner syndrome, XXX female, and XY female. True hermphroiditism, mixed gonadal dysgenesis, and pure gonadal dysgenesis are also included, because most of these disorders have abnormal sex chromosome conditions.

I don’t know the condition of the South African athlete who competes as a woman, but is said to be “intersex”. His/her status might be a developmental issue rather than chromosomal/genetic.

A developmental issue could be genetic in origin, but not associated with gross chromosomal anomaly.

I also shouldn’t have said necessarily just “extra”: chromosomes, but anomalous karyotypes.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 6:10 pm

True … but due to the extreme rarity I didn’t include all possible anomalies. However, the point being, these have nothing to do with psychological defects or “gender” fluidity. The term “gender” is not helpful, especially when sex is not ambiguous.

Thanks for the link. I’ll add it to my library.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 9:15 am

Two options:
Skip the pronoun – The only scientist who maintains integrity…
Amplify the point – The only scientist who maintains any integrity…

Bill Parsons
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 10:40 am

Zirly you jest.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Parsons
January 5, 2022 5:11 pm


To choose but one of many proposed pronoun neologisms.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Bill Parsons
January 5, 2022 8:28 pm

I am Jest… and stop calling me They/Them!

Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 1:20 pm

“The only scientist who maintains his integrity is the female graduate student…”

The only one of all the scientists does something with an attribute they may or not have. The integrity at issue can be had by a number of them. The integrity or lack of it is from the group, is a plural thing.

Rules aside, it’s a common usage unrelated to anything arising in the last ten years.
I often describe a person as they. They have integrity. Getting caught up in some book of grammar serves little purpose.

This could be a regional thing. There’s you and then they. They may be some individual person but I may wish to single you out and drag in they to make the point you don’t act like most people do. So I compare you to they, even though I am using one person who is not you to argue that.

Some people waste our time. They find some minor mistake someone has made and point that out. In this case, some people is one person.

And finally, her form of communication is this specific case in no way hindered her delivery of the their message. Unless, you let it do that.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ragnaar
January 5, 2022 1:57 pm

“Singular they” is part of a Woke assault on the English language, as the egregious “Latinx” is on Spanish.

As Orwell taught, assault on language is part of thought control, an assault on Western culture and civilization.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 6, 2022 4:02 pm

“Using “their” for singular antecedents is one that I think people need to just give up on. As I’ve argued, it only occurs in a very limited set of circumstances, and those circumstances [are very] unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant. We all know what is intended in such a statement, to the point that most of us don’t even notice it in spoken conversation. And as we lack a satisfying alternative, the usage is likely to persist. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t understand what the “rule” is, if only to be able to satisfy those gatekeepers that police it. (Don’t use it in your resume, don’t use it in your grade school application.) But this is an example of a gate that’s not worth defending anymore.”
Curry who wrote the thing knows about gatekeepers.
Give up. Give up. Give up.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 2:15 pm

Disappointing to see Dr. Curry adopting the barbaric “singular their”.

I wouldn’t call someone out on their preferred use of easily understood and oft-employed grammar.

John Tillman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 5, 2022 4:26 pm

I would, because it’s a central tenant of the Woke assault on Western Civilization, to be resisted in the last ditch by all defenders thereof against cultural and ethnic Marxism.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  John Tillman
January 5, 2022 8:36 pm

This was common way before ‘woke’ was even invented

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 6, 2022 4:07 pm

It was common. I was unaware of it it and I am not woke.

John Tillman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 7, 2022 2:21 pm

No, it wasn’t. That’s a shameful Woke lie.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 7, 2022 2:29 pm

I’m a native speaker of English. My ancestors were native speakers of Old English in AD 450 and their ancestors in the Anglo-Saxon-Frisian-Jutish homeland of the Germanic tribes which occupied Britain. Plural “they” is barbaric.

If you believe that this barbaric useage was common before AD 2000, please supply examples.

You won’t because you can’t, Snowflake.

January 5, 2022 6:43 am

I watched the film and didn’t relate it to the climate but thought it was more to do with what numpties politicians and their hangers-on are.

Reply to  Beagle
January 5, 2022 7:21 am

Agreed, the climate mention was only to attract DiCaprio to his role, it was about “Don’t Look Up” to celebrity leaders….

Reply to  Beagle
January 5, 2022 8:16 am

The silly female President being eaten (as predicted by AI early in the film) by aliens on the new planet, somehow seemed appropriate.

January 5, 2022 7:14 am

As entertaining as Vogon poetry

Reply to  fretslider
January 5, 2022 7:50 am


Joseph Zorzin
January 5, 2022 7:34 am

“If you haven’t seen the movie, it is worth watching (available on Netflix).”

Nah, terrible movie in all ways. OK, I suppose, for free on Netflix, but certainly wouldn’t be worth paying for it. I see no redeeming features.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 5, 2022 7:59 am

Never with DiCaprio in it

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 5, 2022 8:45 am

Thee can watch all of the Beverly Hillbillies episodes on YouTube and Vimeo for free.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Scissor
January 5, 2022 9:01 am

I watched them when first produced and just watched them again. Very funny stuff. But of course, nobody could make them now because it wouldn’t be politically correct- uh, then again maybe it would be- after all, making fun of heterosexual white people who have no doubts about their gender is considered OK today. Especially southern whites. Back in the ’70s I was driving in Georgia and got pulled over late at night by an obese sheriff- which freaked me out- only to find out he was warning me about a big accident just up ahead. Very professional. But from watching movies I was sure I was going to be sent off to hard labor for being a Yankee with long hair and beard. :-}

John Tillman
Reply to  Scissor
January 5, 2022 1:01 pm

Thou canst watch…

“Thee” is in the objective case.

Nick Schroeder
January 5, 2022 7:37 am


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 5, 2022 7:41 am

Oops, wrong thread.
Never mind.

January 5, 2022 7:41 am

If climate change were truly an “Existential Crisis” then people wouldn’t be so opposed to nuclear power.
We know we could build a bunch of nuclear plants and provide 80% of the needed power with non-CO2 emitting nuclear power, with the other 20% being the current mix of renewables we already have. The whole world could switch over in 5 to 10 years if it wanted to. Problem solved! We could even roll out thorium reactors and avoid the dangers of nuclear weapons being made from the waste.

But that solution is a non-starter in the real world.

Germany is shutting down their remaining nuclear power plants.

California wants to shut down its nuclear power plants.

I heard even France is going to phase out their nuclear power plants as they reach end of life.

80% of the world power is still carbon based and the obvious solution is nuclear power to replace the fossil fuel portion – but nope. Not going to happen. People are just to stupid to do a proper cost benefit analysis and get past their fear of radiation.

So we will just hear more hand wringing and whining while the really only practical solution we have right now (until we invent working fusion or space based solar) goes on being ignored.

Oh well – maybe after millions are freezing in winter governments will get off the dime and go nuclear. That is the solution.

Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 7:56 am

If climate change was a real threat it wouldn’t need 24/7 PR.

They know very well that within 6 month 95% of people wouldn’t give a sh!t about climate change if they’d stop AGW propaganda now
because climate is too abstract and too human friendly right know that people would care.
On average less people get killed by climate in a year than die from hunger in 2 days.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  SxyxS
January 5, 2022 9:36 am

While we’re discussing the use of English on this thred, it is fewer people get killed , less than a hundred.

Fewer people wrap up warmly these days, not less people wrap up warm these days

Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 8:02 am

Charles Mackay describes human stupidity very accurately in his book “Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds”.

Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 8:19 am

There has been rumblings that the EU will proclaim natural gas and nuclear as “green technologies”.

Reply to  Neo
January 5, 2022 11:54 am

I wouldn’t be surprised. That’s exactly what they did with biomass. They took an energy source which releases more CO2 and other, real, pollutants than coal and “deemed” it carbon neutral. You really can’t make this stuff up!

The Obvious Biomass Emissions Error
Anthony Watts

Reply to  Neo
January 5, 2022 12:03 pm

It’s already happened, it seems.

In today’s WUWT…
EU: Natural Gas and Nuclear are now Green Energy

Jeffery P
Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 9:00 am

It’s not about climate change. It’s about a bunch of people who aren’t as smart as they think they are who believe they have all the answers. They want attention. They want power. They want to tear down the world because they believe they can build it back better. Notice how talk of fighting climate change always turn into advocacy for socialism and global governance?

Bill Treuren
Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 9:33 am

or turn on the gas

Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 10:57 am

Didn’t the EU just declare nuclear was GREEN?

John Tillman
Reply to  Yooper
January 5, 2022 1:15 pm

Despite all the CO2 released by making concrete.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John Tillman
January 7, 2022 4:15 pm

Well, they ignore all that concrete when building wind farms…

Kit P
Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 11:05 am

Well said!

I am old school and think a 25% reserve margin from reliable sources of power such as coal, gas, and nuclear is how you protect old people from dying from not having heat or cooling.

This based on my experience in the control room of nuclear power when I was younger.

Know that I am old and retired I do not have the expectation politicians will allow power companies to do that.

When I was in the navy, I took emergency leave because my mom had no heat when she was dying of cancer. I let it be know to my best friend who has worked in the mayors office that I was beyond angry. Let it be know that I knew how to make nuclear power plants produce heat and how to make heat. An easier task was preventing from working the equipment for making heat anyplace the mayor’s mother, wife, and children lived.

When I arrived home in dress blues, two big well dress black men were standing in the living room. They explained that they determined she was a rich Republican.

I said ‘Truman James’. They came to attention. Told them I was no the longer smallest prettiest boy in our school; but I was still the meanest person they had the misfortune to know.

Truman was the center of the football team. On the second day of a new school he started a fight that I finished. On the first day the biggest white kid pulled a knife to rob me. I explained the rules of knife fights. Size does not matter. He should do his homework. Maybe my dad was in WW!! and showed me how to take a knife away and use it. Part of that was true.

So how do you intimidate the mayors thugs? I knew where there mothers lived and went to church. I would be testifying at their church about how they treated my mother.

Before I could finish, a man from the power company was at the door to turn off the power. Since it was very cold I invited him into the house. It was apparent a confrontation was underway. After explaining my mothers situation, he said the power would not be turned off.

Power companies deal with day to day problems and forecast years in advance so that one of the problems is not lack of generating capacity.

Judging from how goverment deals with day to day problems, I expect goverment to get any crisis wrong.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  RickA
January 5, 2022 8:38 pm

If Climate Change was such an important crisis children would be insisting on going to school (especially on Fridays) to learn all they can about how to deal with it.

January 5, 2022 7:55 am

Is that the wasteland called Hollywood?

another ian
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 5, 2022 3:24 pm

I am old school and think a 25% reserve margin from reliable sources of power such as coal, gas, and nuclear is how you protect old people from dying from not having heat or cooling.”

What “redundancy” used to mean

January 5, 2022 7:56 am

I found the movie’s attempt at a climate change analogy a bit odd.
There had to be an attempted analogy – just look at the cast and producer.

A comet follows a path that can be described empirically, and our planet’s path is also well understood. Potential collisions can be accurately calculated; trajectories, velocities, gravitational attractions, distances and so on.. In contrast, climate model results are not empirical evidence, and atmospheric processes are chaotic. Modellers include or exclude independent variables other than CO2 according to their best understanding of the situation, and also according to the results they want.

The makers of this movie seem to be completely unaware that there is no analogy, because they don’t understand the difference between measuring the actual paths of a comet and our planet on one hand and trying to model a chaotic system on the other.

The movie is an entertaining spectacle of the political tribalism involved, but the makers of the movie are unaware that they are playing those same political games themselves as they go about their work. If they understood themselves at all, they would have thrown the whole project in the bin and curled up in the corner of the room in embarrassment.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Boxer
January 5, 2022 9:35 am

Not to them, the models are spot on.

January 5, 2022 8:26 am

This was a bad movie, a waste of 2 hours.

Reply to  Terry
January 5, 2022 12:50 pm

Yes, I have to agree. The best disaster comedy that defined them all was 1972’s The Poseidon Adventure. Watching Gene Hackman play an all wet bossy minister and Ernest Borgnine pushing Shelly Winters butt through many portholes was comedy genius.

Pat from Kerbob
January 5, 2022 8:32 am

I really like Judith’s take on this, i had not thought about it that way.

Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 8:37 am

I’m convinced that the greatest threat to human existance are the people who want to save us. They have a collective messiah complex and have no qualms about making sacrifices for the greater good. By sacrifices, I mean people like you and me, not them. They think somebody else is going to pay, going to suffer, going to do without because they are too important. Like Stalin, they aren’t afraid to break some eggs to make an omelet.

Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 10:54 am

The ones that truly want to save us, and are willing to kill some of us in the doings, are few and far between.

The greatest threat is those that need to do something ‘big’ to justify their existence … something like ‘protesting’ a perceived injustice; fabricating a racial attack; staying public office without the mental capacity to know when they are pooping themselves; or jumping the shark to keep a perceived positive lifetime legacy from going down the drain.

Reply to  Jeffery P
January 5, 2022 11:40 am

“THE urge to save humanity is almost always a
 false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken

We are here. We’ve done it!

Last edited 1 year ago by .KcTaz
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 7, 2022 4:22 pm

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 5, 2022 9:16 am

Is that a picture of Beijing after the Olympics have finished?

Pieter A Folkens
January 5, 2022 9:24 am

Did anyone else notice the similarities of the protagonists with certain climate change consensus seekers? Male Professor/Academic Advisor and female Grad Student producing a 97%+ consensus. I wonder if the screenwriters got that from Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman.

Clay Sanborn
January 5, 2022 9:25 am

Good article Judith.
My take on the left’s drumming about Climate is that they certainly don’t care about people or their/our future. They want power. To gain power and to socialize the world, they floated the idea to blame mankind for changes in Climate, and with the fake media’s help, many, many have apparently believed. They have to keep pushing the idea though, because polls reveal people don’t want to pay $$ to “fix” it.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 5, 2022 9:35 am

Supervolcanos, comets, the with of the Gods, whatever. My worry is, will my children survive the coming freeze.

January 5, 2022 9:45 am

I’m surprised Hollywood allowed a movie with a simple interpretation that’s different from the intended message. That is:

– Politicians, media and rich elites downplay the reality and hide the truth from the people.
-people listen to the politicians, media and rich elites without question and are socially bullied to disregard the few scientists who maintain their integrity. Real science is suppressed and real scientists are persecuted.
-stupid/greedy solutions agressively pushed by politicians & elites fail miserably and cause horrible damage – grief, suffering and death.
-in the end only the scum of the earth (politicians, rich elites and media) escape and survive.

Sound familiar?

Our reality being downplayed/hidden is that the climate is fine and the planet is healthy. Our real scientists with integrity being ignored & persecuted…that’s obvious to this readership. Stupid/greedy solutions pushed by politicos/elites = wind, solar, EV’s, lockdowns etc. Our disasterous outcome with our scum of the earth unscathed….easy to foresee unless we stop the stupidity.

How ironic.

January 5, 2022 9:46 am

I keep wondering when people will wake up to the undeniable threat of a gamma ray burster aimed at Earth from the local group. It could happen at any time.

No one ever promotes that disaster narrative and there are no plans to Save The Earth™ anywhere at all. Michio Kaku is missing out on this one.

John Tillman
Reply to  Doonman
January 5, 2022 5:12 pm

Not much we can do against that.

January 5, 2022 9:47 am

I saw the trailer and I won’t be watching it. I’m finding it harder and harder to find any decent, non biased fiction either on TV or at the cinema. I feel like I’m being lectured about what a bad person I am and I don’t need to pay for that. I’m glad that most of my favourite shows aren’t made anymore as they’d no doubt end up the same way.

January 5, 2022 9:49 am

The article was a little short on worn-out internet echo chamber jargon. At least we got “at the end of the day” in there.

January 5, 2022 9:51 am

There is only one respond to such things; idiocy!

Rod Evans
January 5, 2022 9:52 am

The opening sentence says, if you haven’t seen Don’t look up, it is worth seeing.
I would say having seen it, it was not worth anyone’s time watching what is a hopeless production of pure nonsense. As for it being a comedy black or otherwise. I can only imagine, like so many modern interpretations of English words “comedy” now means boring.

Andy Pattullo
January 5, 2022 10:24 am

I enjoyed the movie and found it funny. But the funniest part for me was the impression that several of the actors and presumably writer, director and producer thought it was an accurate metaphor for the plight of valiant climate scientists trying to warn us all we should destroy the foundations of society because CO2 will raise temperatures (mainly in polar latitudes a degree or two and the world just won’t listen. Quite the opposite is true. The wealthy western world is not only listening but continuing to dismantle our energy infrastructure while the objective evidence mounts daily that there is nothing wrong with the climate/weather and minimal visible impact of CO2 in any trends we can witness.

Jeff Corbin
January 5, 2022 10:32 am

Each age has it’s style of dealing with pathos related to life lived in a world that is constantly passing away in time. In our age, it is depersonalizing and dehumanizing dystopian narratives of violence, horror and fear. Natural disasters, war, famine, pestilence are a constant reality and have been since the dawn of human civilization. The difference now is that the dark power of the inevitable becomes a source of power in the present for a few. Technology allows this technique of propaganda to flourish. So instead of focusing on what is true, good, beautiful, kind and loving, the focus is fear and terror. It’s so endlessly boring.

Phil R
Reply to  Jeff Corbin
January 5, 2022 2:25 pm

Up voted you. No idea what you said, but it was well written and entertaining… 🙂

Richard S Courtney
January 5, 2022 10:35 am

I agree with the above article by Judith Curry and add my own comment that I circulated elsewhere in the morning of 27 December 2021.


Dear John,
I, too, have watched Don’t Look Up.  

diCaprio, Street & et al, support the AGW-scare so I wondered why they would want to participate in a movie that satirises political scares. Having seen the movie, I now know why.

The movie’s plot can be spun either way. It can be seen as 
(a) a take-down of politicians who fail to act on a scientific warning of a threat
or, alternatively,
(b) a rebuke to all who fail to accept the message of THE scientists promoted by politicians.

The movie, Don’t Look Up, has this duality of possible purposes because good satire can be enjoyed at several levels but, Don’t Look Up, is low-brow satire which has all the subtlety of a pie in the face. It portrays politicians as being self-seeking fools with advisors whose only considerations are political advantage. This portrayal could be thought to be an approximation of the present (and probably very temporary) UK government but the film is set in the USA.  

The movie’s heroes are scientists who try to draw attention to a real problem, but few people believe them, and the US President does not care whether they are right or wrong. Politicians and commercial interests unite to make use of the scare, and the female scientist who tries to provide a message of truth is vilified (Willie Soon is not female but has Asian ethnicity and I suspect he may feel some affinity with the fictional female scientist). Her mentor is male and ‘sells out’ to the politicians until the situation reaches a state of inevitable catastrophe because the government persuades the public to avoid investigating the reality of the scare for themselves; i.e. “Don’t Look Up”.

This movie is not a classic and IMHO is best ignored to avoid it obtaining the Streisand Effect.


PS For those who don’t know of the Streisand Effect; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect 

January 5, 2022 10:40 am

It was reassuring seeing Leo doing his part to accelerate co2 emissions partying hearty with the super yacht crowd in st barts for new year . Guess theres nothing to worry about .

Pat Frank
January 5, 2022 10:44 am

However, throughout the movie, every scientific institution ends up lying about the risk – the head of NASA, big tech CEO, government officials, and eventually the protagonist professor (Leonardo DiCaprio).

That summary is a good analogy to “climate change“™.

Since 1990, every single major scientific institution has ended up lying about the risk of CO2 emissions – the head of NASA, big tech CEO, government officials, and even all the major universities. In large part to keep the grant money flowing.

There are standout scientists with integrity, most notably Richard Lindzen, Willy Soon, and David Legates. Even Freeman Dyson. But they’re ignored by all the powers that be.

Here’s Judy Curry’s big failing: “The fundamental policy challenge of climate change is that it involves making changes now for the sake of preventing harms that occur largely in the future to people living in other countries.

Judy believes climate models, and believes she knows something about the impact of CO2 emissions on the climate.

She shouldn’t, and she doesn’t.

Judy talked about the uncertainty monster but when it actually showed up in the flesh, she ignored it. And seems blind to it.

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 5, 2022 4:59 pm

Judy believes climate models, and believes she knows something about the impact of CO2 emissions on the climate”

Yep. She is too close to the issue. Firstly, there is no proof that anything other than medium term weather has changed slightly. (if that) Certainly not the climate – first we would need to agree on a definition of that, and the current definition is some kind of joke. Secondly there is no proof or even evidence that the mild change in weather is 1, unprecedented, 2, set to continue and 3, even the slightest threat.
She maintains that we can measure the impact of human co2 through observation. Utter nonsense.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 6, 2022 7:13 am

You never see the benefits either. I always look at like Kansas will have temps like Oklahoma, Nebraska like Kansas, South Dakota like Nebraska, etc. We will have corn, wheat, and soybeans being stored on the ground all over the place.More food than you can shake a stick at. How is that bad?

England will be raising crops like France does now. How is that bad?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 6, 2022 7:16 am

You’re right, Jim. I recall someone pointing out that “climate change” means that people would come to experience the climate present now 100 miles to the south. Nothing scary in that.

January 5, 2022 12:45 pm

How long until griff pops up again to assure us that only paranoid people believe there is any connection between global warming and international socialism?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2022 4:01 am


Perhaps you could tell what you mean by “international socialism”.

The obscure hypothesis of AGW existed for a century before it was elevated to become an international scare by Margaret Thatcher who was a Tory and not a “socialist” of any kind (“international” or otherwise).

The AGW-scare grew because it was promoted by people of all political ideologies until the Chinese communists prevented a successor Treaty to the Kyoto Protocol at the Copenhagen CoP in December 2009.

At present the AGW-scare is championed by Tory UK PM Boris Johnson who appointed his Tory chum as Chairman of the recent Glasgow CoP who gave a tearful public apology for failure to resurrect the AGW-scare which is suffering a slow demise.

So, please say what you mean by International socialism” and what is its “connection” with “global warming”? And is the “connection” part of the imaginary “Jewish problem” which the far right has been claiming for more than a century?


Patrick Hrushowy
January 5, 2022 1:23 pm

Couldn’t get past the first 15 minutes. The satire is so juvenile that a first year creative writing class could have done better. Clumsy is a term that fits.

David Ging
January 5, 2022 5:36 pm

“The fundamental policy challenge of climate change is that it involves making changes now for the sake of preventing harms that occur largely in the future to people living in other countries.”

Can someone help me out? What is the harm that supposed to occur in the future? The IPCC says a 2-foot rise in sea levels by 2200. That will cause some problems with coastal cities and coastal areas. But it’s hardly a catastrophe. It’s less than one quarter inch per year. Private enterprise is more than capable of dealing with it.

But it’s worse. The trend for the past 40 years has been for a 1-foot rise by 2200. Over the last 100 years, sea levels rose 8 inches. So, the current trend is for a sea level rise 4 inches higher than the last century? Where’s the catastrophe of climate change? Where are any problems for climate change? Hurricanes haven’t increased. Droughts haven’t increased.

What’s the harm we’re trying to prevent in mitigating climate change.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  David Ging
January 7, 2022 4:35 pm

The real issue is unfortunately summarily ignored.

That is the damage that will be done in any effort to mitigate their imaginary problem, which will be orders of magnitude worse than their Bullshit Boogeyman if it was real.

Jim Veenbaas
January 5, 2022 5:53 pm

I really enjoyed the show. Jonah Hill had by far the best performance. The corporate guy who wanted to mine the asteroid was great too. I didn’t even mind Decaprio, although his monologues shouting into the camera were the worst scenes of the show.

The cognitive dissonance of the producers was super fascinating. The two scientists are portrayed as the little guys fighting against the machine, yet in reality the climate change industrial complex is the machine. It’s the alarmists and zealots who are diverting attention away from real climate solutions like nuclear power and adaptation.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
January 6, 2022 3:06 am


AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
January 7, 2022 4:36 pm


There is no spoon.

January 5, 2022 8:08 pm

The movie is the purest example of gaslighting I’ve ever suffered to watch! It is propaganda of the sickest sort; that which glorifies the psychopathy of those that created it. And Judith has swallowed it all – hook line and sinker – along with that very, very stupid parroting of the doublespeak word “existential” which unthinking fools imagine makes them sound intelligent! For god’s sake, just say what you mean, stop using the planted words of ideologues! Use constructions like “a threat to our existence” or “real risk” or “imaginary risk” (If that is what you mean to say), instead of the esoteric jargon gobbledegook fuzz-words proffered by totalitarians.

Any fool can write learned language: the vernacular is the real test.- C.S. Lewis

Bill Parsons
January 5, 2022 9:46 pm

The movie is a hot mess.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
January 5, 2022 11:38 pm

I can make a specific prediction about the phrase “Don’t look up!”

In the movie, it is used by those denying the existence of the comet as it hurts towards the Earth. Much is made of how foolish these people are, how cultish in their refusal to see what is in front of their face, obviously intending to lampoon the “climate deniers” and supporting he impending thermaggedon hypothesis.

I suggest this phrase be adopted immediately by the catastrophe sceptics and talk about the sun. The IPCC and especially a small clique of corrupt climate scientists, lead a cult that chants “Don’t look up” because one might spot the sun. The sun is ignored, even by AR6, to the disgrace of the authors and editors.

“It’s us! Don’t look up! It’s not something visible in the sky! There is nothing in the sky that affects the climate! The sun is constant! Don’t believe those fools who looked up!”

Willie Soon will have a field day lampooning the uneducated Hollywood A-list clowns participating in that freak show. It was political, it was obvious and it was scientifically illiterate as a parody. One finger pointing away, four pointing back.


January 7, 2022 5:08 pm

The prime “earth gets hammered” sci fi is still the book: Lucifer’s Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. While there probably some nitpicking errors in the science, the drama and factual reality is outstanding. There must be 20 or more characters that are fully developed and many lesser ones that play key roles. The whole story is based on scientifically sound premises. Love and other emotions play a big role also.

Read it if you can get it. Published in 1977. Never made into a movie. The craft apparently wasn’t up to it at the time.

Reply to  Philo
January 8, 2022 8:21 am

Hopefully never WILL, especially with what Hollywood would do to it. I have found that reading it for the first time gets people thinking about things differently. Therefore I keep several copies around to hand out.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights