Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
I thought the movie 'Climate the movie' was just a a simplistic ragbag of snippets, a technique that can be used to prove almost any thesis. I could make a similar movie to extoll the virtues of mRNA vaccines.A recent post pointed to the evidence in Switzerland by Dr Judith Curry. whose blog gives a much more balanced view. She accepts the basic thesis that increasing CO2 will inevitably warm the planet's surface and that the temperature trend is upward. This is just basic physics. What to do about it if anything, whose fault is it if anyone and does it matter are different matters. I have seen glaciers over my 50years of visiting the Himalayas, Andes, Ruwenzori etc in steady retreat, and the signal from nature in my own garden is that species now exist there that were once only resident in warmer climes.
Ian, Curry's position is not that different from the scientists in the film. Of course she accepts that CO2 acts to warm the planet, but the focus should be on a different aspect. I quote from her book: "Climate change associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain." And that is the whole case, would you not agree? I did not see scientists in the film denying climate change. They just presented a view that there are other factors much more important at play than CO2. And this is not deemed as an 'acceptable' view today.
There are several instances in the film that speakers clearly say global warming is not happening. As soon as I see Willie Soon, I know I am being sold a pup. He works for a foundation funded by oil and coal companies. That is all you need to know. Actually I have learnt a lot from following some links from your posts. so thank you. The academic trend may well be all on one side, and politicians like to spout what is called in British satire. the 'announcables', but money speaks louder. China is opening 2 new coal fired electricity plants per week apparently.
And your point is correct of course about China. But I would point out that they do not love coal plants only today, but are also heavily investing in 'renewables'. They cannot meet their energy demand so they use everything and do not care about the environment and wildlife habitats, destroying them and saying that this is good because they reduce CO2. This is what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVQxp9ekPe0
I think the researchers in the film say 'climate crisis' is not happening and it is not the same thing as warming. They also point out that the temperature record is not correct and when we talk about warming we use the record corrupted by UHI effect which gets you a much higher warming rate. This all corresponds to the research of some of the scientists in the film and is not actually disputed at all as far as I know. They also point out that the temperature rise has not been constant since the mid 19th century as there was a significant cooling period in the mid 20th century. This is a fact.
In conversation, keep in mind that the false narrative is:
"We face a crisis of rapid destructive change of climate due to the use by humans of fossil fuel which commenced with the Industrial Revolution. It is caused by the carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere and this gas by acting like a greenhouse is the primary cause of the global temperature which is being reported as rising dangerously - AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)"
Always correct the topic, do not deny climate change but always bring it back to AGW
Then try and muster multiple lines of argument. Climate: The Movie provides an excellent collection of topics to use.
I thought the movie 'Climate the movie' was just a a simplistic ragbag of snippets, a technique that can be used to prove almost any thesis. I could make a similar movie to extoll the virtues of mRNA vaccines.A recent post pointed to the evidence in Switzerland by Dr Judith Curry. whose blog gives a much more balanced view. She accepts the basic thesis that increasing CO2 will inevitably warm the planet's surface and that the temperature trend is upward. This is just basic physics. What to do about it if anything, whose fault is it if anyone and does it matter are different matters. I have seen glaciers over my 50years of visiting the Himalayas, Andes, Ruwenzori etc in steady retreat, and the signal from nature in my own garden is that species now exist there that were once only resident in warmer climes.
Ian, Curry's position is not that different from the scientists in the film. Of course she accepts that CO2 acts to warm the planet, but the focus should be on a different aspect. I quote from her book: "Climate change associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain." And that is the whole case, would you not agree? I did not see scientists in the film denying climate change. They just presented a view that there are other factors much more important at play than CO2. And this is not deemed as an 'acceptable' view today.
There are several instances in the film that speakers clearly say global warming is not happening. As soon as I see Willie Soon, I know I am being sold a pup. He works for a foundation funded by oil and coal companies. That is all you need to know. Actually I have learnt a lot from following some links from your posts. so thank you. The academic trend may well be all on one side, and politicians like to spout what is called in British satire. the 'announcables', but money speaks louder. China is opening 2 new coal fired electricity plants per week apparently.
And your point is correct of course about China. But I would point out that they do not love coal plants only today, but are also heavily investing in 'renewables'. They cannot meet their energy demand so they use everything and do not care about the environment and wildlife habitats, destroying them and saying that this is good because they reduce CO2. This is what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVQxp9ekPe0
I think the researchers in the film say 'climate crisis' is not happening and it is not the same thing as warming. They also point out that the temperature record is not correct and when we talk about warming we use the record corrupted by UHI effect which gets you a much higher warming rate. This all corresponds to the research of some of the scientists in the film and is not actually disputed at all as far as I know. They also point out that the temperature rise has not been constant since the mid 19th century as there was a significant cooling period in the mid 20th century. This is a fact.
In conversation, keep in mind that the false narrative is:
"We face a crisis of rapid destructive change of climate due to the use by humans of fossil fuel which commenced with the Industrial Revolution. It is caused by the carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere and this gas by acting like a greenhouse is the primary cause of the global temperature which is being reported as rising dangerously - AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)"
Always correct the topic, do not deny climate change but always bring it back to AGW
Then try and muster multiple lines of argument. Climate: The Movie provides an excellent collection of topics to use.
Great defense for “Climate The Movie.” Between it and Robert Bryce’s “Juice”, the counter-arguments to Climate Crisis are well-made.
mRNA of Sars-Cov-2 is in the sewerage everywhere because the 8th wave of Covid is not ended.
mRNA goes into the sewerage because the virus is in urine and faeces of infected people whether they know they are infected or not.
Try not to believe the voices which come from your TV set when it is switched off