Climate: The Movie

The Climate Series: A documentary about liars and their lies.

97% of the Members of the Communist Party acknowledge that communism is safe and effective. (The remaining 3% are being re-educated as we speak) - SsgtHolland

---

This documentary is excellent!

It’s short, easy to understand, very well produced and credible.

I’m so glad that Tony Heller gets airtime in it.

I would strongly recommend it as essential viewing for a younger crowd. It has the potential to “break the spell.”

There are a few excellent minutes from 22.30 that cover the subject of “CO2 starvation”, yes you heard that right, we don’t have enough of it!

Another great moment is about 36.30 where it’s explained that the IPCC does NOT take the sun into account with its modelling. I don’t use emojis in my writing, but I’m going to make an exception here, 🤦‍♂️.

For those new to my writings, here is my collection so far of my Climate Series of articles:

1. FREE eBook: The Climate™

2. Empire’s Religions

3. Carbon Dioxide

4. Nuclear Ivermectin

5. The Old Man and the Walrus

6. Geoengineering

7. Child Prophets

8. On Sea Levels: Gates vs Morner

9. Planet of the Humans: A Documentary

The climate lie is a big deal to me, for many reasons, primarily because it depresses the young. It steals their optimism. I cannot think of anything worse.

---

Summary of Main Topics and Themes:

• The documentary argues that the current climate change alarm is an exaggerated scare story not supported by scientific evidence.

• Historical and geological data show that Earth's climate has naturally varied greatly over hundreds of millions of years, with past temperatures usually far higher than today's.

• Thermometer records, when adjusted for the urban heat island effect, show only a mild warming over the past 150 years, with most of that occurring before 1940. Satellite data shows even less warming.

• Historical and proxy data shows no increase in extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, etc. Official data actually shows a decline in many of these over the past century.

• CO2 levels were far higher in Earth's past. When viewed over geological timescales, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Temperature changes have historically preceded CO2 changes, not the other way around.

• Natural factors like clouds, cosmic rays and variations in solar activity likely play a much larger role in climate change than human CO2 emissions.

• The so-called scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is more of a political and economic construct than a scientific reality. Skeptics are bullied and intimidated into silence.

• Billions in government funding incentivizes scientists and institutions to exaggerate the threat and importance of climate change. Scientists whose livelihoods depend on the climate crisis have a vested interest in perpetuating alarm.

• Climate change has become a political ideology and mass movement far removed from science. It is supported by those who favor big government intervention in the economy and private lives. Skeptics are demonized as anti-science "deniers".

• Political pressure makes it very difficult for scientists to challenge climate alarmism. Those who do face loss of funding and ostracization from their scientific communities, jeopardizing their careers.

• Climate policies advocated by environmentalists would make energy much more expensive and greatly lower living standards in developed countries, while denying vital fossil fuels to the world's poor.

• Growing numbers of ordinary people are becoming skeptical of climate alarmism, seeing it as an agenda by elites to limit their freedoms and lifestyles. The documentary predicts popular resistance to authoritarian climate policies will continue to grow.

21 Key Points and Takeaways:

1. There is no scientific evidence that the modest warming of the past century is unprecedented or dangerous. Past temperatures were often much higher.

2. Accurate, unadjusted thermometer records and satellite data show only mild warming, with most occurring before 1940, not in recent decades.

3. Historical and proxy records show no increase in extreme weather events. In fact, events like hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, etc. have declined over the past century.

4. Throughout Earth's long history, CO2 levels have usually been far higher than today but did not drive temperature change. Over geological timescales, temperature changes precede CO2 changes.

5. When CO2 levels have been low in Earth's past, plant life nearly went extinct. Modestly higher CO2 today is greening the planet.

6. Natural climate change factors like clouds, cosmic rays and solar variations likely play a far bigger role than human CO2 emissions. But these are not the focus of most climate research.

7. Billions in government funding for climate research has perversely incentivized scientists and institutions to exaggerate the threat in order to keep the funding flowing. Careers now depend on perpetuating climate alarm.

8. The groupthink "consensus" on climate change is more political than scientific. Skeptics are subjected to bullying, ostracization and job loss - especially vulnerable young scientists.

9. The desire to expand government power and intervention in the economy is a major driver of climate alarmism. Skeptics are vilified as anti-science "deniers".

10. Urban heat effects have artificially inflated thermometer-based temperature records. When this is properly accounted for, the warming is much less.

11. Climate models based on CO2 as the temperature control knob have consistently failed, drastically over-predicting warming. But this is not publicized.

12. Authoritative scientific bodies like the IPCC have an institutional bias to present climate change as an existential threat, or they would have no reason to exist.

13. Proposed "solutions" like renewable energy would make energy far more expensive while providing no measurable climate benefit. Their real purpose is limiting consumption.

14. Leaders of the climate movement show no signs of radically reducing their own high-consumption lifestyles. They exempt themselves from what they demand of others.

15. Apocalyptic climate scenarios and policy demands are causing a growing political backlash, as ordinary people resent elites trying to restrict their freedoms and living standards.

16. Climate change has become a political ideology far removed from science. Proponents catastrophize every weather event and environmental change as proof of impending doom.

17. There is tremendous pressure within the scientific community against challenging climate alarmism. Skeptics face bullying, loss of funding and reputation destruction.

18. Unelected bureaucrats and politicians use climate change to greatly expand their power and budgets, while "green" businesses get rich off subsidies.

19. Media and academia uncritically amplify exaggerated climate claims while ignoring contrary evidence and silencing skeptics.

20. Many of the leading scientific institutions supporting the climate consensus also have an financial incentive to do so, in the form of greatly increased funding.

21. Climate alarmism functions as a regressive ideology that would deny affordable energy and living standards to the world's poor while exempting its wealthy proponents.

21 Questions and Answers:

Q1: What is the central argument of the "Climate: The Movie" documentary?

A1: The documentary argues that mainstream claims about a man-made climate crisis are exaggerated or false. It presents evidence that climate change is less severe and more naturally-driven than is often claimed, and that the issue has become politicized in support of an ideological agenda.

Q2: What evidence does the film present regarding current global temperatures?

A2: The film cites research showing that current temperatures, while mildly warmer than the Little Ice Age centuries ago, are not unprecedented. For most of the last 500 million years, global temperatures were significantly warmer than today.

Q3: What does the documentary say about extreme weather events like hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts?

A3: The film presents data showing that there has been no detectable increase in extreme weather events in recent decades. It argues that media reports of increasing extremes are not supported by observational evidence.

Q4: How does the film explain the mild warming observed since the 19th century?

A4: The documentary suggests that a significant portion of this warming may be an artifact of growing urbanization around surface weather stations, creating an artificial warming bias. It cites satellite data showing less warming than surface stations, and a 40-year pause in warming from the 1940s-1970s even as CO2 emissions accelerated.

Q5: What evidence does the film give that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change?

A5: The documentary points out that CO2 levels have been much higher in Earth's geological past, during periods when temperatures were no warmer than today. It presents research suggesting that in the ice core record, changes in CO2 levels trail changes in temperature, not the other way around.

Q6: What does the film say about the supposedly unanimous scientific consensus on climate change?

A6: The film argues that there is no real consensus, and that a significant number of highly-credentialed scientists dissent from the mainstream narrative. However, it argues that in order to safeguard their careers and funding, many scientists downplay their skepticism publicly or stay silent.

Q7: What evidence does the film present that climate science has become politicized?

A7: The film points to the strong professional incentives and pressures that now exist for scientists to support the climate crisis narrative. Research funding, publication in journals, and professional status are now heavily predicated on alignment with an alarmist position. Outright censorship or suppression of skeptical arguments has become common.

Q8: How does the film characterize the motives behind climate change advocacy?

A8: The documentary suggests that climate change has become a multi-trillion dollar industry encompassing government bodies, universities, financial institutions, businesses, and advocacy groups. It argues that these now have a strong financial incentive to maintain the climate crisis narrative. Meanwhile, ideological groups have seized on climate as an opportunity to discredit industrial capitalism and justify vast expansions of state power over the economy and people's personal choices.

Q9: What does the film argue is the real impact of climate policies on the global poor?

A9: The documentary contends that denying cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy to developing nations, in the name of climate sustainability, means locking them into desperate poverty. It argues that this is essentially a regressive program by Western elites to deny the global poor the basic standard of living delivered by mass industrialization.

Q10: What parallels does the film see between the climate issue and the Covid-19 pandemic response?

A10: The film argues that both involved a unilateral expansion of state control over people's lives, imposed in an atmosphere of panic. It sees both as an opportunistic power-grab by ideological actors under the guise of emergency. The result has been a populist backlash, as citizens rebel against suffocating official control over their personal freedoms and lifestyle choices.

Q11: How does the film explain the historical pattern of warming and cooling cycles over the last 2000 years?

A11: The documentary points to the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age as evidence that significant natural climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history, independent of human activity. It notes that these correspond to fluctuations in solar activity, suggesting the sun plays a major role in driving climate cycles on a centennial scale.

Q12: What role does the film say clouds play in the Earth's climate?

A12: The documentary argues that clouds are one of the most powerful factors regulating Earth's temperature, but are poorly understood. It suggests that variations in cloud cover, potentially driven by solar activity and cosmic ray flux, could account for most observed climate change. Climate models fail to capture the full impact of clouds.

Q13: According to the film, how do government funding priorities distort climate science?

A13: The film argues that government bodies have a self-interest in promoting the climate crisis narrative, because it expands their mission, budget, and power. As a result, the vast majority of government science funding flows to researchers and work that supports an alarmist perspective. Research proposals emphasizing natural variability or uncertainties are unlikely to be funded.

Q14: How does the film characterize the wider political and cultural crusade surrounding climate change?

A14: The documentary sees the climate issue as a moralistic cultural narrative that has become disconnected from science and evidence. In elite institutions throughout the West, expressing the correct position on climate has become an obligatory token of respectable opinion. Dissent or deviation is morally stigmatized, creating immense pressure for conformity.

Q15: What does the film argue is the relationship between the climate change movement and economic development?

A15: The documentary argues that the climate movement is fundamentally hostile to economic development, because development depends on cheap, abundant energy and "unsustainable" resource use. It contends that climate concerns are being weaponized to discredit industrial capitalism and mass consumption in principle. The real program is one of arrested development and green austerity.

Q16: What evidence does the film present that CO2 is beneficial rather than harmful?

A16: The documentary notes that CO2 is essential plant food, and that the Earth has been in a CO2 "famine" compared to the lush eras of the past. It points to evidence that the mild increase in CO2 has boosted global agricultural output and accelerated the greening of the planet. The film argues that the biological benefits of CO2 are never acknowledged amid the relentless demonization.

Q17: How does the film explain the resistance to nuclear power from many climate activists?

A17: The documentary argues that if reducing CO2 emissions were the sincere goal, climate activists would embrace carbon-free nuclear power. The fact that they vehemently oppose nuclear power reveals that their real agenda is to restrict energy use and economic growth in general. Abundant zero-carbon energy is actually contrary to their underlying ideology of de-growth and consumption limits.

Q18: What does the film see as the endgame of the climate change movement?

A18: The documentary argues that the climate crisis is ultimately a pretext for ideological actors to impose centralized, totalitarian control over every aspect of personal and economic life. It contends that the "solutions" proposed will make citizens poorer, more dependent, and less free - but that this is a feature, not a bug, for those driving the climate agenda.

Q19: How does the film believe the public will ultimately respond to the climate alarm narrative?

A19: The documentary points to growing grassroots anger and protest in many Western countries as climate policies begin to concretely impact voters' lives through higher energy bills, travel restrictions, and other impositions. It predicts that as the costs of climate policies mount, populist resistance will spread, ultimately derailing the agenda.

Q20: What solution does the film imply to the problems it identifies with the mainstream climate change movement?

A20: Although it does not explicitly outline a solution, the documentary seems to call for a restoration of scientific integrity, open inquiry and debate on climate issues. It implies that science and public policy should be decoupled from political ideology and financial conflicts of interest. Policymakers and the public should consider climate change with realism, rationality and proportion, not alarmism.

Q21: If the film's arguments are correct, what does it imply about how society should prioritize its resources and attention going forward?

A21: If indeed climate change poses a less severe risk than many institutions claim, it would suggest that the aggressive, costly policies currently being imposed in the name of a climate crisis are unjustified. Resources are being diverted from other important issues and society is making decisions based on a false and exaggerated threat assessment. A more balanced and holistic approach to global development, environmental conservation, energy access, and economic progress is needed - one not yoked to the narrow ideology of climate catastrophism. We should be wary of empowering a vast edifice of unaccountable bureaucratic, financial, and political interests predicated on the specter of imminent climate doom.

---

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.