Unpermitted documentaries (you can send to friends)

By Jo Nova

Martin Durkin’s work will be studied one day like Thucydides as a record of a bizarre moment in human history. It is so quintessentially British. I thought I’d seen it all in the climate debate, but this is so well done, perfect for a curious, matter-of-fact mind. It pulls you along, with timeless nostalgic footage in a classic English delivery, calmly unravelling mythology. It will resonate with people who remember cities, cars and great documentaries of long ago.

Because it’s not angry or activist it’s a gift you can send to friends who are science nerds, or history buffs, or who remember the sixties. Send it to people with teenagers who have no idea the curriculum hides a half a billion years of history. Send it to green friends, who have no idea a third of the food made in Africa rots before it can be eaten without fossil fuels and plastic to preserve and transport it.

Imagine the effect if this was shown at schools.

It’s the story of how an activist movement became a big industry, they say. But I can’t help thinking it was a big industry that grew an activist movement…

The link on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ONMGnSiOLhjG/

and Vimeo   https://vimeo.com/924719370

UPDATE: Surprisingly it is still on Youtube today (Sunday) and with subtitles in other languages. Vote it up there while you still can…

Honest scientists are no longer free,
To discover; what science should be,
Fearing censure and sacking,
And from colleagues no backing,
With consensus are forced to agree.

–Ruairi

 

9.7 out of 10 based on 127 ratings

108 comments to Unpermitted documentaries (you can send to friends)

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Jo says:

    “it was a big industry that grew an activist movement…”

    A good summary of the fact that these “causes” are made and don’t just evolve out of a groundswell of community concern.

    The push behind all of the social justice type causes of recent times can be heard, felt and experienced on their ABCCC radio where there’s a constant stream of verbalism from visiting academics.

    I listen to this verbal onslaught to inform myself of what’s going wrong with the media, but sadly the bulk of listeners simply tune in and hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

    The organisers are doing a good job.

    321

    • #
      RickWill

      I listen to this verbal onslaught to inform myself of what’s going wrong with the media,

      Tough gig but I guess someone has to do it. It is beyond my threshold of tolerance for carp that makes it an impossible task for me.

      161

    • #
      Archie

      It’s big.

      https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

      “After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars.”

      80

    • #
      Well-informed

      KK. Over the weekend 500,000 people went to the Oz F1 Grand Prix etc. This week multiple millions are travelling for Easter. Everywhere you go, the local clubs, associations etc etc are thinking up ever more festivals (sports, culture, food, music) to have their towns packed with visitors flying-in, driving-in etc every-bloody-weekend.. We are also told that tourism by private vehicle is so prevalent that vast numbers of used-to-be-permanent rentals are NOW short-term vacation B and B homes.

      THEN we are told that the masses are frightened to use fossil-fueled vehicles: are turning away from them because they worry about Climate Change? WTF?

      No. It is all a leftist scam to enrich leftists. It’s a gas-lighting effort by leftists to scam other leftists. Since most leftists believe they are the smartest people around……believe they are very deep thinkers…..it’s just another verification of George Orwell’s pithy put-down ‘Some ideas are so stupid that ONLY an intellectual could believe them”

      Who cares what hysterical morons “believe”?

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    This is an excellent documentary.

    Highly recommended.

    Where this documentary appears on YouTube the UN and YouTube defaces the listing with their propaganda message. I am surprised they haven’t deleted/censored it yet.

    481

    • #
      Tony Thomas

      A colleague of mine at the CliScep blog is concerned about what he considers a major flaw in the Durkin movie, you can read his view here,
      https://cliscep.com/2024/03/23/climate-the-movie/

      21

      • #
        David of Cooyal in Oz

        Seems to me that the graph he’s used shows that there’s no increase from a doubling from 400 to 800 ppm, completely demolishing the IPCC approach. He also ignores the way CO2 increases following, repeat following, rises in temperature, itself in complete agreement with Henry’s Law.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        140

  • #
    David Maddison

    The mass acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming fraud and the other “social justice” (sic) movements would not have been successful without first deliberately destroying the “education” system and turning into an indoctrination system.

    Thus skills such as critical thinking, science, mathematics, geography, basic literacy etc. are no longer taught (or not adequately taught) and are replaced with propaganda in relation to race, gender, opposition to Western Civilisation, anti-family, anti-Judeo-Christian moral values, imminent climate and other catastrophe, supposedly running out of resources, mass migration of people that don’t fundamentally accept the values of Western Civilisation etc..

    It’s all under the auspices of the German communist Rudi Dutschke and his 1967 plan: “der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen” or “the long march through the institutions”.

    481

  • #
    David Maddison

    This documentary should be compulsory viewing in “schools” and for all politicians and senior public serpents.

    But that would never happen because the people behind the anthropogenic global warming fraud don’t want the truth be known. We know that must be the case because why else would the former(?) WEF employee Greg Hunt be behind the refusal of then PM Abbott’s request for an investigation into data fraud at Australia’s Bureau of Meterology resulting in the removal of Abbott as PM?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/environment-minister-greg-hunt-killed-idea-of-bom-review/6803572

    Lord Monckton warned about that before it happened:

    https://youtu.be/NG0WcjGHkEw

    350

    • #
      GlenM

      Abbott squibbed a lot of things. Section 18C of Freedom of expression was another. He was probably the best PM of a bad lot – and that includes Howard who started a lot of rot and control in this country. We are paying the price of weak and indifferent governance and having insipid leaders who cannot grasp strategy. I’ll concede that having leftwing greens and independents doesn’t help. People will have to wake up to being dudded.

      200

      • #
        Ted1.

        Abbott didn’t squib anything. The Palmer United Party blocked him, apparently at Al Gore’s call.

        Clearly Abbott was reserving the contentious issues for a double dissolution election, but Turnbull usurped that election and squandered it.

        151

    • #
      Well-Informed

      David (6.03am). Apart from teenage girls suffering the dreaded teen-angst, hardly ANY school-kid believes any of this stuff.

      Example: according to the very-unbiased ABC (Oz version) last year’s (Nov 17 2023) “School Strike 4 Climate”….”This year, organisers estimate that about 1,000 kids attended the Sydney rally on Friday, and another 2,000 joined the protest in Melbourne”

      I’m guessing there must be a MILLION school-kids in Sydney. Does ONE THOUSAND look like a lot to you?

      C’mon. A huge storm in a teacup. Like every other scam run by the left!

      BTW: The journos state “From the streets, to the courts, to the halls of parliament, the youth climate movement continues to knock on the doors of power” Hyperbolic BS, is it not?

      30

  • #
    Simon

    Plastics do not need to be made from fossil fuels and modern efficient transport emits much fewer greenhouse gases and harmful particulates than it used to. Look forwards into the future, not backwards into the past.

    275

    • #

      Windmills are so from the past… 😀 Even the very old Chineses used them, even veritcal ones…

      Reconstruction

      360

    • #
      Popeye26

      Aaah Simple Simon,

      For you to even write what you have indicates to me you haven’t even watched the movie! Had you watched it you wouldn’t have written such garbage.

      “modern efficient transport emits much fewer greenhouse gases and harmful particulates” APART from EVs which over THEIR lifetime are much more harmful than using ICE vehicles – PROVE me wrong.

      Incidentally, that’s a FACT even before they are recycled or disposed of!

      Have a nice day.

      Cheers

      420

      • #
        CO2 Lover

        Do Not knock Simple Simon

        He (or she or it or they or them) is probably making a small fortune from some form of taxpayer funded research grant or acting as a well paid middleman importing Chinese made solar panels.

        There was a well known saying where I used to work: “Do not knock someone else’s racket – get one of your own”.

        251

      • #
        GlenM

        Simon believes that plastics can be formed out of carrots and cabbages. A dystopian view of the new world revealed.

        170

        • #

          Simon believes that plastics can be formed out of carrots and cabbages. A dystopian view of the new world revealed.

          Why not, they have lotsa of carbon in them?
          Like making oil out of air – air has carbon (CO2) & Hydrogen (H2O) Just add energy!

          thanks
          JK

          10

      • #
        Ronin

        “Incidentally, that’s a FACT even before they are recycled or disposed of!”

        Or self immolate.

        60

    • #
      David Maddison

      Look forwards into the future, not backwards into the past.

      The basic lie you are telling there is that the Left is “of the future” when in fact they are regressing us into the past with weather dependent energy.

      The Left are regressives not the progressives they identify as.

      In modern Western society there are no more primitive, backwards, regressive forces than the Left.

      Plastics do not need to be made from fossil fuels

      Just like hydrocarbon fuels can be synthesised from CO2 and H20 in the air, or so called “green” hydrogen. The only problem is the huge amounts of energy required to do that.

      If free market forces are allowed to operate any resource shortages are compensated for as substitutes will be found as prices for more scare traditional resources escalate.

      The biggest lie you and the Left in general tell in regard to climate is that mankind controls the weather through combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

      And the biggest atrocity is your support of China being by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter and rapidly rising and being more than twice the emissions of the next biggest emitter, the USA.

      And China builds two coal fired power stations per week with no end in site. Plus they are not stupid and Emperor Xi plans to be the world’s dominant and only superpower in ten to twenty years with the help of the useful idiots of the Left.

      If wind and solar truly was the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity production, don’t you think the Chicomms would be using it to a meaningful degree rather than just paying lip service to it?

      460

    • #
      David Maddison

      You didn’t bother watching it did you Simon?

      240

    • #
      John in Oz

      SHould you be interested in the real world, I suggest you watch the video at https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar.

      Unobtanium is a movie contruct, not reality and that is what your supposed future energy source requires.

      170

    • #
      Harves

      “Plastics do not need to be made from fossil fuels“
      Oh, please tell us how you make your plastics, Simon.
      I trust you don’t use plastics made from fossil fuels … because that would make you an A1 hypocrite.

      130

    • #
      cohenite

      Thank you Simon. You seem very nice.

      00

  • #
    TdeF

    I have to repeat my comment from two days ago after I received this movie..

    —————————–

    Great movie. My problem with it is that Will Happer and his CO2 coalition believe the CO2 increase is man made. He told me so. Peter Ridd agrees.

    His comment in the movie is that we do not have enough fossil fuel to lift CO2 further and get more benefits. I was aghast.

    So he supports and feeds the man made carbon dioxide myth but argues that on balance CO2 is good, the gas of life.

    Great except that it is not an argument against massive carbon dioxide (toxic) emissions taxes, electric cars and windmills and solar panels. His approach, wrongly conceding the essential argument that the CO2 increase is man made is not only wrong, it is a strategic disaster.

    The CO2 increase is not man made. There is only 3.0% of fossil fuel CO2 in atmospheric CO2. We cannot change CO2 if we tried. But this movie effectively endorses carbon sequestration, carbon farming, carbon taxes, renewables.

    It concedes incorrectly that we humans are indeed carbon dioxide polluters and you open the doors wide for government intervention.

    There is only one foundation point to win in Rational science. Win that point and everything else is irrelevant. And it’s the point they concede implicitly and explicitly. Man made CO2 is a lie.

    Again, it’s a great movie and well overdue. Good graphics. Voice over. Balance. Everything. Even Clauser’s Nobel Prize. But it cedes ground disastrously in a conciliatory and misguided way. The increase in CO2 is not man made. We have known this since the birth of radio carbon dating by New Zealander G.J.Fergussion and published in the Royal Society in 1958 when fossil fuel CO2 was measured at 2.08%+/-0.15% after two world wars.

    Humans cannot change CO2. There is a rapid world wide equilibrium of CO2 with the oceans, a simple fact of physical chemistry. And humans, trees, fossil fuels are irrelevant.

    The fundamental problem in man made CO2 driven Global Warming is the ‘man made’ bit. It’s not true.

    I am so disappointed in the missed opportunity to set the record right.

    451

    • #
      TdeF

      Prof Happer was totally convinced by the Ice Hockey Stick, the historic picture of CO2 which bolts metamorphic ice to firn to laboratory measurements, as wrong in its own way as Manns tree rings and thermometers. All historic CO2 movement as small as 50% have been wiped out by the 1000 year resolution as CO2 moves during the process of conversion and compression from snow to firn to solid ice.

      Peter Ridd wanted to know why CO2 had gone up. He requires an explanation of the rise of CO2 before he would stop believing it was man made. That is actually the basis of all religions, that if you cannot explain life, there must be a God. What science tells you is that truth comes from facts. And by direct measurement not inference, there is almost zero fossil fuel CO2 in the air.

      As for the 50% increase in CO2, that’s simple warming, but it will have to be understood. There are many possible answers such as simple surface warming which is undeniable. Also potentially the same ocean currents which have produced the patterns of warming for the last 250 years also affect CO2 as CO2 is not only a gas, it can be swept along in currents. What is also known is that other gases have gone up, including methane. But no one is even trying to explain the increase. The CO2 Coalition has accepted it is man made, without proof.

      The tiny atmosphere is after all a product of outgassing from the vast oceans. So a 50% variation over 250 years is tiny and you would think of no consequence, except it is the single basis of the UN control over all democratic governments. And Australia is being strangled by legislation, massive taxes, carbon farming, carbon abatement, carbon sequestration and even an attempt to control farts. All Australian manufacturing is fleeing and that is being forced by the Safeguard Mechanism (2023) and Carbon farming(2011) and the Renewable Energy(Electricity) Act 2001. Soon and like Britain, all manufacturing of metals will stop. And we will be helpless.

      This is not helped by a movie which explicitly supports the idea of man made CO2. And that we humans are the biggest polluters, producers of massive (toxic) emissions.

      331

    • #
      David Maddison

      I agree TdeF.

      Even though an excellent documentary as I said, it was certainly a missed opportunity to explain the real reason for the CO2 increase and disclaim the false reason of anthropogenic emissions which are responsible for only a tiny proportion of all atmospheric CO2.

      The point was however made that we are currently in one of the coldest periods in geological history outside of glaciation events plus one of only two periods when atmospheric CO2 has been so low, and dangerously so. Had CO2 continued to fall to below 200ppm or 150ppm we would have had a mass extinction event as plants don’t function below those levels depending upon which photosynthetic route they use.

      I’d have liked to have seen commentary on the fact that the largest readily accessible CO2 sink is the ocean and the oceans are still warming from the cooling event of the Little Ice Age (given the huge thermal capacity of the oceans) and CO2 being soluble in water in inverse relation to the temperature, as the oceans warm they emit CO2.

      In addition I would have liked to see a debunking of the myth that CO2 causes “global warming” and also mention of the sun and Milankovitch Cycles being the main driver of climate. The sun is a variable star and solar output is not constant.

      Perhaps if we write to the producer we can encourage the production of a second version or second part where these issues are explored.

      320

      • #
        CO2 Lover

        Planetary Orbits May Explain Mystery of Sun’s 11-Year Cycle

        The tidal forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the sun’s 11-year cycle.

        https://www.space.com/planets-affect-solar-cycle.html

        100

      • #
        TdeF

        It was much more than a missed opportunity, it directly supports the idea of man made CO2 aka toxic air pollution and a potential major problem in the eyes of many. Car exhausts. Acid rain. Smog. Electric cars. Taxes. They just lost the battle.

        Will Happer. 25:28
        “we should be very grateful that CO2 levels are beginning to go back up.
        We’re still far from the historical norms which would be several thousand parts per million
        There’s not enough fossil fuel to get there but at least we’re making a start.”

        Once you say you are the problem,a polluter in the eyes of many, that you agree dirty CO2 is a direct product of fossil fuels, you invite the Greens/Teals/communists/public to view and target all of Western society as polluters. And how many of them are going to watch the film and change their views? It just looks like a desperate defence, not a demolition of the story.

        200

        • #
          Ted1.

          Don’t rush to predict the Teals. They are a rare breed that we haven’t seen before.

          I would expect a bit of research would find that most of the Teals would be taking a pay cut to go into parliament. They wouldn’t like that.

          Watch and see how many of them renominate at the next election.

          30

  • #
    Alex

    I am a subscriber of Clintel Foundation. I received the link to the movie by email two days ago. I watched it during the night (Europe time) and sent to my brother in Sydney first thing in the Aussie morning. He was elated.
    Then I sent it to a believer friend of mine, with a promise that he would give me feedback. His reply was that he had to admit that it may well be a scam.

    210

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, that is so unfortunate. A counter to the Inconvenient Truth and it has the same feel. Story after story. Talking heads. Graphs.
      What to believe? And the Inconvenient Truth is supported by the UN, endless governments, endless media and Al Gore won the Nobel Prize for it! How do you compete with that?

      The UN has hammered one point for 36 years, that the 50% increase in CO2 is man made. And the warnings of dire consequences have not stopped. This powers the legislation being passed everywhere in Western democracies by activists. And the one science fact which could stop it dead is not being said. There is no fossil fuel/man made CO2 in the air.

      160

      • #

        The driver of the CO2 increase is controversial within the skeptical community. My view is we do not know because nothing in the vast natural flux is measured. I think the movie does a great job without introducing that controversial issue.

        153

        • #
          TdeF

          Controversial? A controversy? It’s never mentioned.

          And Radio Carbon Dating measures the age of CO2. There is no old CO2 in the air. It’s black and white.

          110

        • #
          TdeF

          David, it’s why I started commenting.

          This question of man made CO2 was settled by direct measurement 66 years ago! It was almost the first thing done with the new idea of radio(active) carbon dating as all modern CO2 is radioactive and ancient CO2 is not.

          What is the counter argument for this ‘controversy’?

          And not one based on coincidence or lack of a explanation but by direct measurement. There is no place for conjecture when you have direct measurement. And ice cores, the only counter argument I have seen is an argument of correlation and coincidence and alleged lack of precedent. It shows CO2, not the origin of CO2.

          There is room for plenty of debate for the increase. The simplest one is global warming. More complex ones include CO2 and heat from the same source, ocean currents.

          And the vast natural flux is measured. It was accurately measurable when we doubled atmospheric C14 in 1965 and watched it all disappear with an accurate half life of 7 years. You can do precise calculations on quantity.

          Plus the fact that it all disappeared into the deep ocean is obvious as there is nowhere else C14 can go.

          It’s indisputable. But as you say, ‘skeptics’ do not all agree. In my experience they all have their own way of debunking the theory or as Happer and his CO2 Coalition do, argue that the increase is actually on balance good. Which is true. But doesn’t help.

          140

        • #

          Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age
          by Demetris Koutsoyiannis: Sci 2024, 6(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010017

          Abstract
          Recent studies have provided evidence, based on analyses of instrumental measurements of the last seven decades, for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) as the effect. In the most recent study, this finding was supported by analysing the carbon cycle and showing that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions, while the latter are no larger than 4% of the total. Here, we provide additional support for these findings by examining the signatures of the stable carbon isotopes, 12 and 13. Examining isotopic data in four important observation sites, we show that the standard metric δ13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions. In addition, proxy data covering the period after 1500 AD also show stable behaviour. These findings confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle and a non-discernible signature of humans.

          20

  • #
    Alex

    According to Google, we emit 10 Gigatons of carbon equivalent of CO2 along the year in a carbon sink (atmosphere and hydrosphere) containing 38,000 Gigatons. What we humans contribute is less than irrelevant in the order of things.
    Divide 10 by 365 days, that’s just 0.027 Gt every day into a sink of 38,000.

    That is all one needs to know about how insignificant we humans are in relation to nature’s forces.

    Persons who believe that they can command and control Earth’s temperature, rain, wind,hurricanes etc is a megalomaniac.

    180

    • #
      CO2 Lover

      Do not overlook the fact that the oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than does the Atmosphere.

      120

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, but the people pushing man made CO2 driven global Warming (IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CSIRO,Royal Society…) counter that.

      They know tiny human CO2 is not enough in the vast sink which is the ocean. So they make up a new story, that there are two oceans. A small top ocean of 1,000 Gt comparable to the atmosphere for the fast CO2 exchange and a gigantic deep ocean of 37,000 Gt which does not communicate with the top ocean. This is demonstrably not true, but it is published everywhere as pictures, the Bern Cycle. It allows the Armageddon pushers to agree with rapid absorption but has made the biosphere tiny, so half of all fossil fuel CO2 remains in the air. That’s the trick.

      And in this story our small CO2 contribution is making the oceans acid (which they never can be) and is boiling the oceans and cooking the surface. Look at the NASA document of this fantasy. They show 37,000 of the agreed 38,000 are separated by thousands of years of slow exchange at a tiny rate.

      140

    • #
      CO2 Lover

      Persons who believe that they can command and control Earth’s temperature, rain, wind,hurricanes etc is a megalomaniac.

      I still prefer to refer to our Minsister for Energy as an “idiot”.

      150

    • #

      Our annual emissions may be small but they are about twice the size of the annual increase. This makes our causality a plausible hypothesis, but certainly not an established fact. My view is we have no idea what is going on because nothing in the natural flux is measured and it is very complex, nothing like a reservoir model. Since it is largely biogenic it shouod oscillate naturally.

      82

      • #
        CO2 Lover

        The increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere (from whatever cause) is leading to a “Greening of the Planet” which will increase the amount of CO2 taken back out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis.

        So far increasing CO2 levels are having a positive outcome. Same with a recent warming from the colder 1970s.

        No time to panic now – have centuries to deal with much higher CO2 levels should they ever eventual and become problematic.

        “She’ll be right mate” is the best attitude – and pass me another beer.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, Happer’s second most important point, the Greening of the Earth. It’s his fun point, that NASA have to admit that two entire Brazilian rainforests were added between 1988 and 2014.

          However while he makes his point of nett benefit, his major argument that an increase in CO2 is good, he misses two major points.

          1. CO2 did NOT go down. It continued on as usual, up and down with seasons for 14% increase in this time.
          2. the increase in forested area amounts to 14% of the land.

          So more CO2 means more trees. But more trees, billions of trees have zero impact on CO2!

          The ONLY explanation for replacing trillions of tons of sequestered CO2 is that more came immediately from the ocean. No surprise there. CO2 is maintained within 1% from pole to pole.

          Which means carbon farming, sequestration/burying, carbon credits are all busted. And they are the foundation of the Carbon Farming (2011) act which creates Australian Carbon Credits which are used in the Safeguard Mechanism 2023 Act now in force. Close your business or pay 35% tax on CO2. The biggest plastics manufacturer in Australia just left.

          130

  • #
    Strop

    The movie’s link on Vimeo

    https://vimeo.com/924719370

    70

  • #
    Dave in the States

    This truly deserves a Nobel Prize.

    Or at least an Academy Award. I wonder if they could get Leonardo what’s his name to present it?

    90

    • #
      TdeF

      A Nobel Peace Prize? That’s been done before.

      71

      • #
        Dave in the States

        But this Doc. is so much more deserving, especially about the implications for the third world. And does one think once the middle classes in the first world wake up, they will be willing to not put up a fight? There will not be peace.

        The one before was so undeserving that this one should be axiomatic.

        But we are dealing with a new pagan religion not a scientific debate.

        90

  • #
  • #
    Old Goat

    My takeaway – follow the money . Its all about the money , nothing to do with CO2 but that is the victim here . The assault on rationality started here and now has moved on to almost everything else . How long before we have a uni degree on riding unicorns and magic ? By the way – thanks Jo for posting this.

    110

    • #
      CO2 Lover

      Its all about the money

      And Power. “Climate Change” is a religious and politican movement – always a dangerous combination.

      Anyone with a moderate amount of intelligent can see through the scam.

      But who are the promoters of the “Climate Change” scam?

      The intellectual giants like Chrissy Bowen, Airbus Albo, Greta Thunberg, John Kerry and Al Gore.

      110

    • #
      RickWill

      You know for certain that when Cliva Palmer changes his view on global warming after talking to Al Gore that it is all about money.

      120

  • #
    Hampstead

    It’s a very convincing film if you don’t consider all the evidence, that’s what scientists do.
    A partisan movie is not progress. If sceptics have evidence, then publish it.
    Assertions are all they have.

    030

    • #
      Old Goat

      Hampstead,
      You are Simons alter ego . They provided (and published) all the evidence required . How about you disprove it ? Assertions is all you have ….

      180

      • #
        Hampstead

        Nice reversal of demand, you spread your debunked evidence in public because it failed in the scientific realm. Blogs like this wouldn’t exist if you had the facts.

        023

        • #

          You want our money, you say you can control the weather, you have the obligation to provide some evidence.

          Instead all you have is bluster and petty namecalling. You bait with meaningless insults, and fake claims of “debunkment” that never happened.

          We’ve heard it all before and we are so bored. We let you post so everyone can see you have nothing. No reasoning, no data, no observations. So keep coming “Hampstead” whoever you are. You are free to post evidence anyday, but we all know you can’t.

          290

          • #
            MP

            And thank you for allowing them a voice.

            Best to keep the rubbish off the streets.

            90

          • #
            Hampstead

            The evidence is on the site of any reputable body, try NASA for a start, but they’re all part of some conspiracy.
            You keep making baseless assertions because you can’t get any evidence past basic review

            018

            • #

              A cop out. Says Mr Hampstead with zero, nil, nothing in the way of evidence.

              If there is so much evidence, how come you can’t post any of it?

              We quote hundreds of papers. You have nothing that shows CO2 causes catastrophic warming.

              160

              • #
                Hampstead

                Sadly, there is ample evidence which you know of but dismiss because of the global cabal that suppresses the truth, so any efforts on my part would be futile. The burden of proof lies with you, your’hundreds’ of papers are either quoted out of context, cherry picked, or simply wrong. If you had a science degree, you’d know how misguided your efforts are.

                16

              • #

                So you’ve got nothing and are wrong on every point.

                There’s nothing I can say that will seep through the wall of delusion. You aren’t even smart enough to argue the point, or the papers. Sorry Hampstead, we need a smarter troll. If you meet someone like that, tell them to come over.

                100

            • #
              Simon

              All of the taking points in this video have been debunked many times in the past.
              https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html
              Time for some new evidence and theories. There don’t appear to be any up-and-coming young scientists in the ‘sceptical’ community judging by this video.

              07

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Insertions are so passee.

      70

    • #
      Treeman

      Hampstead I think you have it the wrong way around. Assertions are all the scientists have because their climate models failed to match observations and their predictions have not eventuated or have been debunked. Over the decades since the alarm changed from impending ice age to impending boiling oceans the so called consensus has been comprehensively demolished.

      150

    • #
      Strop

      Hampstead. How much of the movie did you watch?

      90

    • #
      Lance

      How does one molecule in 60,000 control anything?

      Show me that proof. Don’t tell me to find it. It is your claim. Show the evidence.

      The Liturgy of the Church of AGW is a meaningless sideshow for graft, grift, corruption, and control.

      Not ONE single claim of the CAGW crowd has ever happened in over 100 years. Tell me why anyone ought believe your claims. Prove those claims.

      Logic, reason, proof, facts, science, thermodynamics, history, radiation heat transfer, seem to elude your claims.

      90

  • #

    I certainly agree that climate change is bunk and that fact is provable simply from recorded history (medieval warm period, roman warm period). The section on geology brought to mind what might be seen as ironic however: for as long as I can remember the scientific community has excluded young earth creationists and/or Christians who think there is evidence that the great flood occurred in fields as diverse as archaeology, paleontology and especially geology, for instance Gerard Gertoux who used astronomy as the basis of his chronology of the ancient world – a far more reliable dating method than carbon dating (look up Hallstatt plateau) – and whose well earned doctorate was denied him because of his religious beliefs, after his monograph on the name of God had already become one of the most cited works on the subject in the literature. The assertion that no ideas should be excluded from a scientific discussion rings pretty hollow in this respect; I certainly don’t rejoice to see anyone excluded from the scientific discussion, especially when a quasi religion with no evidence has replaced an evidence based discussion – however I have seen the shutters come down on people’s brains long before this when unwelcome ideas are being discussed. Some creationists bear some of the blame for this I think, for their judgemental attitude towards anyone who held the evolutionary view. But the same people who a generation ago excluded evidence based discussions of the great flood are now suffering the same exclusion from the scientific discussion re global warming – which is just as irrational as believing the informational complexity of the cell could arise by chance. How I wish people were more civilised !

    80

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    I do not make interweb videos.
    So may I offer a coincidentally close approximation of myself for the consideration of the JoNova community.

    Our first step towards decarbonization is to admit that we are carbon based life forms.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKhNeKV6CMY

    130

  • #
    Treeman

    Thank you Jo. I just sent this post with a direct vimeo link to many contacts and all the teachers I know😎

    90

  • #
    John B

    A nice overview at Wattsupwiththat

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks for linking to this video Jo and I enjoyed it and will watch it again.
    But Humans and even Homo-erectus used fire to cook and protect themselves and it was essential during very cold periods.
    So we have been using wood fuels to help us for many 100s of thousands of years, although our first fully evolved populations would’ve been very small during most of that time.
    But why the stupid OECD countries want to return us to lunacy like TOXIC W & S is a mystery to me and we should only build RELIABLE BASE-LOAD energy from now on.
    We must stop this W & S madness and copy the NON OECD’s rush for BASE-LOAD energy or we’ll soon be very weak and have to suffer the consequences by 2040. Otherwise China and Russia etc will be watching and waiting and ready to pounce.
    Here’s a Wiki link to some surprising early estimates for our use of fire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

    80

  • #
    Danno

    During the initial stage of Earth, volcanoes supplied CO2 to the atmosphere, and the oceans slowly absorbed it. Working for the course of millions of years, one celled algae harvested the CO2 and turned it into tiny shells of carbonate. They accumulated in thick deposits of chalk, or limestone on the ocean floor. Later, our restless Earth pushed up the seafloor and carved out in the form of massive cliffs. Other marine creatures took in CO2 to build enormous coral reefs. And the ocean converted dissolved CO2 into limestone. As a result, only a trace amount of CO2 was left as a gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

    70

  • #
    Dan

    Thomas Gold wrote “The Deep Hot Biosphere” many years ago. We know there are massive deposits of methane hydrate at depth and leaks out from under the continents. He continues from there. Maybe coal formation is simpler than biologic origin plants. Natural gas and crude oil also may also not be remnants of biological origin. It is possibly the other way around.

    Hydrocarbons may simply form as organic chemicals within the chemical soup beneath the mantle of the earth. Perhaps an abundance of nearly limitless energy in this earth contrary to the global warming mantra. Book reissued: “The Deep Hot Biosphere, the Myth of Fossil Fuels”, with Freeman Dyson.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    As readers know, I have been going on about CO2 being absorbed quickly into the ocean and the C14 proof that the air is not 33% old fossil fuel CO2. Never once has anyone disagreed with the argument. Happer and Ridd never disagreed. They just ignored it. And moved on to their favorite stories, like the density or diameter of stomata on some leaves as plants adjust to different CO2 levels.

    Sure, there has been a counter argument of ice core CO2. Not a proof of fossil fuel but indicating that the growth in CO2 is unusual and timed correctly for fossil fuels. Coincidence is not a direct measurement.

    And there has been a strange new version of the Suess dilution effect for varying C13/C12 ratios, the non radioactive isotopes. I have been though this and it actually ends up at the same conclusion, even if the story teller usually comes to the wrong one.

    But the direct measurment of fossil fuel CO2 has never been refuted.

    David Wojik says it is ‘controversial’ but I have never seen a rebuttal. And it is not mentioned once in the film.

    I cannot see how they hope to win the argument by ignoring direct measurement of the essential fact that fossil fuel CO2 quickly disappears.

    We saw it after the massive Australian bushfires in 2019.

    Does anyone have any idea why such a simple technology to track fossil fuel CO2 is never discussed? Not by NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, Royal Society, anyone?

    And why it does not even rate a mention in this film in which man made CO2 is presumed to be 33% of atmospheric CO2. Without proof?

    131

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    I must confess that I didn’t watch the movie.

    Then I started reading TdeFs comments and realised that a major concession had been made to the co2 catastrophists, namely, that we humans are only partly guilty.

    As TdeF says, there’s no accumulation/ build up of human origin CO2 in the atmosphere.

    My own push is that basic science denies the Global Warming myth convincingly.

    Additionally, the temporary abnormally cold spell around 1800 allowed the Warmanistas to say “look at the rapid co2 rise in the last two hundred years “.
    A total misrepresentation of the situation.

    Kalm Keith

    March 21, 2024 at 6:09 am ·

    There is absolutely no scientific truth behind the claim that human origin CO2 is a danger to the planet.

    The concept of death by incineration due to Global warming from human origin CO2 is a malicious fiction that cannot be supported in the real world.

    Global Warming is nothing more than a media push that tries to cover the scientific truth that co2 induced Global Warming is falsified through basic atomic physics, astronomy, atmospheric reality, thermodynamics and quantitative analysis.

    P.V = n.R.T rulz!

    90

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      And please, don’t mention “The Photons “, moving in every direction imaginable as directed by the UNIPCCC.

      40

  • #
    Jonesy

    Thursday, July 12th,2007 at 9.30pm. An innocuous date? This the exact time after airing The Swindle the ABC went too woke for my palate. This night Tony Jones showed he had his injection and was as woke as everyone else at TheirBC. Martin Durkin’s first show did not go well with the orthodoxy of the people’s broadcaster. Martin has not strayed from his original plot. The story is still relevant now as 17 years ago. CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT GUILTY! Without their daemon, the edifice collapses!

    90

  • #
    Neville

    So how do we prove that our very BENIGN climate today allows the maximum Human flourishing in Human history? That’s the last 300,000 years.

    If we choose African data since 1950 we can easily prove our case.
    African population has increased from 227 million in 1950 and 1495 million today.
    And African life expectancy was just 36 years in 1950 and is 64 + years today.
    AGAIN this is the MAXIMUM HUMAN FLOURISHING for 300,000 years. So why do our so called Scientists ignore the Data and evidence for our world’s poorest continent.
    Importantly Africa suffered from 90% of global HIV AIDs deaths and 90% of global Malaria deaths during the last 74 years as well.
    Of course Africans don’t have the medical or hospital care today that is found in other parts of the developing world and the wealthy countries and yet their population today is about 6.5 times higher than 1950.
    The population in the rest of the world ( less Africa) is about 3 times higher today compared to 1950.
    Child mortality is much lower today in Africa and most Africans have more to eat even though their population has increased by 1268 million over the last 74 years. IOW a wonderful climate since 1950 and co2 311 ppm in 1950 and about 421 ppm today. AGAIN where’s their Climate Emergency or silly Biden’s EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
    This UN data proves that their so called Climate Emergency is just more BS and fraud. Click on the life expectancy button at the link 1950 to 2024.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AFR/africa/population

    100

  • #
    TdeF

    My concern in Australia and world wide is that scientists should be explaining that there is no man made CO2 in the air. That CO2 is in continuous world wide equilibrium with the oceans. We could not change it if we wanted to do so. CO2 goes up and down as it pleases. So everyone measures ’emissions’ which we can control, in principle.

    But then all the carbon schemes would be pointless. The hydrogen craziness. Renewables. Renewable Superpowers. Undersea cables. Endless windmills, solar farms and transmission lines. Endless rebates and taxes and penalties and subsidies. Trying to refreeze the Arctic ice pack. All for nothing!

    And I would have thought the big energy vendors would jump at debunking the myths. But they are quietly confident that they will sell all they can produce, so why should they care? Sales are skyrocketing like Mann’s graph. And OPEC and the UAE hosted the annual Climate Crazies in the world’s most artificial city, run entirely on masses of fossil energy. And Qatar is second. All the food is flown in by jet! For 5 million people!

    So no one cares. There is no money to disprove all this and everyone is looking to optimize their profits. Dubai hosted 130,000 people for a week! A massive windfall from the well heeled climate crazies. Hundreds of private planes, as usual.

    The Climate Craziness is becoming the defining aspect of modern civilization, after CSR, BLM, DEI, ESG, CRT and the rest of the endless post Modern Marxist acronyms for destroying Western Society. And now the Islamophobes will be overreacting the massacre of hundreds of Christian Russian theatre patrons by Islamic State in Moscow. Just as the Israelis overreacted.

    No one wants it to end. Climate Craziness is a way of life now. And it is disproven with one fact, but no one wants to know.

    I have been accused of being a ‘denier’ and a shill for Big Oil. I would like to know how you do that? Is there a job application I can fill out? What’s the pay like?

    171

  • #

    Oh! It’s quite clear! All those ‘experts’ featured in the movie are clearly suffering from age-related dementia! You can tell that by the colour of their hair.

    So there!

    And now I’m off to read the latest proclamation from the experts at ‘The Climate Council’ which will no doubt be featured by ‘Their ABC’ & SBS, with help from our print Media, such as ‘The Pravda-by-the-Yarra’, ‘The Socialist Moaning Herald’, ‘The Graudian’, ‘The Saturday Paper’ et al. ….

    And, excuse me now because I’m off to hold a banner for the next protest by ‘Extinction Rebellion’. I have to do my bit to save the Planet, don’t you know …..

    And, of course, everyone knows that there’s just so much ‘carbon pollution’ in the atmosphere. It’s thing like 47% and increasing – don’t you know ….

    80

  • #
    MP

    If you remove the word CO2 from that and put in COVID, same play book.

    91

  • #

    `
    Honest scientists are no longer free,
    To discover; what science should be,
    Fearing censure and sacking,
    And from colleagues no backing,
    With consensus are forced to agree.

    170

  • #
    Vicki

    You are a gem, Jo Nova. Thank you so much for the intro to Martin Durkin!

    140

  • #
    Gerry, England

    Looks to have been censored by Vimeo.

    30

  • #
    Warren

    CO2 must NOT be regarded as pollution. As stated, in past periods there has been heaps more CO2 around than there is now! A key message being that warming precedes CO2 increase. CO2 increase tracks warming, NOT the other way around. Also, couldn’t find any reference that oceans are a huge sink for CO2. The colder it gets, the more CO2 is absorbed BUT warming has the reverse effect; CO2 is released. Nor could I see any reference to the Milankovitch cycles which have a profound effect on solar influence.

    30