‘Climate: The Movie’ attempts to demolish the myths of the 'consensus'

You can’t expect nuance in a film demolishing the hysteria about climate change with 80 minutes of talking heads, coloured graphs, and archived film clips. But you can expect provocative challenges to the “scientific consensus”, whatever that means.

Some of the experts interviewed in “Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)” are self-described climate change deniers, including a Nobel Prize winner who says that he no longer has to watch his words to protect his career.

The film ends by asking viewers to “follow the money”. I wonder if that was a wise strategy. It’s a time-honoured but cheap way of discrediting opponents. (Critics of the film advise readers to ask who paid for it, etc.) But on the whole, it prods viewers to be more sceptical of the hysteria surrounding the climate change debate. It’s well worth watching.


Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

Showing 4 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Malcolm McLean
    commented 2024-05-04 15:28:52 +1000
    I’m a computational biochemist, which means that my main job as a scientist is to examine and analyse sequenced DNA. And DNA builds RNA builds protein. And I’m also a doctor, which means teacher, and if there is some sort of call on me to teach about this, it is very much my duty to respond and teach other people how to perform similar analyses. And I just can’t do that effectively if there are people saying “genes don’t undergo mutations, species do not split off, genes don’t duplicate, they don’t then split apart and specialise, and that isn’t driven by adaptive advantages. None if these things fundamental to the analysis actually happen”. No, I have to reserve the right to tell these people to go away, whilst I shall teach how to analyse the genetic sequences.
    (Actually that is the bioinformatican’s job, but we won’t split those hairs. I also do bionformatics).
  • David Page
    commented 2024-05-04 10:04:38 +1000
    accepting that evolution is a gradual process doesn’t, in any way, preclude the very distinct possibility that there is magic in the process; in the world.
  • Malcolm McLean
    commented 2024-05-04 00:03:27 +1000
    There is genuinely a consensus amongst scientists like myself with a qualified view that Creationism is nonsense. And in my case I have published on what I consider to be weak but real evolutionary force, and since it acts directy on the DNA itself and skews it, there’s just no question that we have a plausible mechanism, But the problem is that left wing, activist groups, attempted to apply the same sort of intolerance to people who were sceptical about global warming that we apply to Creationists. And I’m pretty well up on evolutionary biology, but I couldn’t produce any better a climate model than you or my nurse, and I just don’t have that qualified view in global warming myself. But I do have a bit if cuteness, and I know that it is far too early to treat sceptics as Creationists and try to shut them down. The left wing activist groups demanding massive economic changes just cannot have a case that strong.
  • Mercator Staff
    published this page in The Latest 2024-05-03 12:08:57 +1000