Climate change movies

This year is still shaping up to be an interesting one for climate change debate (alarmists v denialists). The introduction of an Australian ETS has been delayed from 2010 until 2011… but the legislation is still going to parliament this year and it remains controversial with some people demanding more action and some people demanding less action.

In recent weeks the Ian Plimer book (Heaven & Earth) seems to have gotten a lot of people excited or angry. Plimer represents the “humans aren’t to blame” faction in the debate. My position is closer to Bjorn Lomborg and the CATO climatologist Pat Michaels, who accept the mainstream science story but suggest that it isn’t a big problem. Hopefully Michaels will be in Australia later in the year to give his views on the world and contribute to the ongoing debate.

But for those who prefer to watch videos rather than read books, there are a few other contributions coming soon. From the directors of “Mine Your Own Business“, we have a documentary called “Not Evil Just Wrong” which looks at global warming hysteria. Or if you prefer talking about clouds there is “The Cloud Mystery” which looks at the work of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and others (Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer, Richard Turco) into the impact of clouds on the climate.

Whatever happens, it looks like this argument will be going on for a while to come…

15 thoughts on “Climate change movies

  1. It is interesting – a couple of years ago it was all “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. If you argued otherise you were an evil heretic clearly in the pay of Big Oil. There was even a few suggestions that denying AGW be a criminal offence, like denying the Holocaust in some countries.

    When did the debate sneak quietly back on the table?

    I’ve heard less hyperventilation and apocalyptic predictions from the likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery recently; if the deniers are rearing their ugly heads you’d think they’d be arguing their side loudly. They don’t seem to be, so what does that suggest?

    Andrew Bolt’s been pretty consistent in his denialism, but I don’t regard him as an expert on the topic, and his posts are more about taking potshots at alarmists anyway.

    I think it’s too early to call, but is it just possible that some chinks are are appearing in the warming to hell story?

  2. Papachango, the presence of a few dumb movies or dumber books no more suggests that there are chinks appearing in global warming than Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed suggests that there are problems with evolution.

    If the AGW-sceptics want to challenge global warming, they should try to publish scientific papers.

  3. So you’re saying no sceptics have ever published papers contrary to the IPCC consensus or more alarmist views?

    If you didn’t mean to say that, you’ve at least implied that. Which would counter your assertion that global warming is unchallengeable.

  4. Has a comprehensive rebuttal of global warming appeared in the scientific literature? No.

  5. I think it’s a largely irrelevant debate :/ If people want to be more environmentally responsible, they will do it themselves

  6. Steve – I think it’s very relevant, given there are a large body of people arguing that we aren’t environmentally responsible enough and that governments should force us to do it.

    Mainstream government are implementing major reductions on our individual liberties in the name of AGW, and there have even been serious calls by some of the more hysterical alarmists for the ‘suspension of democracy’.

  7. Links? Sorry, but I’m inclined to disbelieve that kind of claim off hand, as any good skeptic should πŸ™‚

  8. Ken — have you seen the above movies?

    And there is no consensus on the exact effects of AGW, or exactly how much AGW we are going to see, or how large the benefits and costs of warming are going to be, or what the impacts of government policy will be on AGW, etc.

    The consensus (such that it is) is regarding only one part of the story. To use a consensus on a narrow issue to shut down debate about the broader issues would be wrong.

  9. I’m not surprised with Ken’s well intentioned but nevertheless damaging intolerance on this issue. On another thread he was suggesting that people who believe God created the earth and the universe aren’t equipped to do science.

    I really don’t understand why the science geeks seem to be all over the issue of how to deal with AGW seeing the solutions etc. requires an understanding of economics etc and most wouldn’t even know what a demand/supply curve even looks like or what it is.

  10. Steve –

    fair enough, scepticism is a very good thing to have. It annoyed me in the whole AGW debate that skepticism was somehow considered bad – it really drew a parallel with religious dogma, where skepticism is not tolerated.

    The calls to limit our freedoms in the name of AGW are well documented – just check the Greens website, or any eco-warriors website for what they propose.

    The suspension of democracy came from Clive Hamilton, director of the left wing Australia Insitiute. He has form for totalitarianism, he publicly supports mandatory Internet censorship on principle. Here’s what he said in an article entitled ‘hidden doom of climate change’ :

    This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

  11. Thanks πŸ™‚ I knew about Hamilton’s anti-liberalism streak and his canoodling of Rudd’s buttocks, but I hadn’t read that one. I wasn’t entirely aware of the greens supporting suspension of electoral process (I used to be in the young greens, though not overly active) to push their agenda, but I’ll have a look into that too

  12. Where did I say the Greens support suspension of electoral process? They don’t as far as I know, though it wouldn’t suprise me if some of them did privately.

    The ‘calls to limit our freedoms’ I was referring to are their general agenda of heavy regulation e.g. banning or putting extra taxes on 4WD vehicles, increased water restrictions etc etc

  13. Papa

    You’d be surprised. More than a few greens I’ve spoken to think that the world is in such a dire state from global warming that representative democracy can’t deal with it and we need the intervention of a person with “vision” to be able to re-arrange the nation and the world.

    Don’t underestimate the very totalitarian group. Admittedly most green supporters aren’t like that, however the party is littered with these types.

  14. jc – yes I know, hence my rather guarded comment about not being suprised if some of them are totalitarians in private.

    This relates back to what I was saying on the other thread about political activism.

    For all that I disagree with most of their policies, the Greens are masters of it. Their biggest triumph is convincing people (otherwise smart and well-educated people) that they are a nice cuddly party that cares about the environment and sticks up for the underprivileged, and even that they fight for our individual liberties, which they do on some ‘sexy’ issues, but definitely not overall.

    For e.g. – on a news blog about the Greens’ opposition to the Internet censorship, more than one poster made the comment that ‘the Green are the only party that defends out individual freedoms’. It annoyed me, as there should be a genuine libertarian party in that space.

Comments are closed.