OK, I've finished it. Wow, where to start...
1. The man has no credentials, just an electrical engineering degree. -He's not qualified to talk about something against a huge, worldwide bunch of specialists with PhDs ON Climatology. -Listening to him was kind of insulting, but I did it this one time so we'd have a frame of reference for this conversation. The VAST number of assumptions he made (And he admitted to more than a few of them) shows that he's no expert, just an enthusiast. no more than an armchair quarterback.
Don't forget, it is a well published fact that 97 out of 100 of climate experts think humans are causing global warming. Who does this shmuck think he is?
2. He pretty much only quoted 4 sources:
A. The IPCC when he wanted to say something was incorrect.
B. Mann when he REALLY wanted to say something was incorrect.
C. "Hadley" when he wanted to agree with it.
D. Himself and the person who he says assisted him in making the presentation.
So basically, he is saying: 'Mann is a fruitcake, the IPCC is just wrong, Myself and my helper are right, and Hadley's work would back me up on many of my points.'
Pure comedy, considering the source. He's Cherry-picking data for sure, as is evident when you realize that "Hadley" is the Hadley center in the UK, a very oft-quoted source for Climate science by both sides, Including in the report I linked to.
3. His claim that in the last decade the heat was trending DOWNWARD is just silly. In fact while he made that film the world was right-smack-dab in the middle of the very hottest heat GROWTH period in history, period. He was quoting old data for sure there, more cherry picking.
4. His attack on "THE HOCKEY-STICK Chart" was also laughable, since there are no less than 4, and I've heard as many as SEVEN hockey-stick charts that strongly correlate. (His was just CO2, when the evidence clearly shows that Atmosphere CO2, Temperature Change, Ocean Warming, Climate Forcing, Temperature change, and of course Man-Made CO2 production charts
all have the same hockey-stick shape over the last 1000 years.
This fact is such a solid homerun for AGW supporters that of course he couldn't mention it in his film.
5. His "Famous Picture" (at least he calls it famous) about all the land-based temperature-recording stations being highly biased because they are build on concrete or next to buildings looks like a real serious problem; but in the scheme of things, it is absolutely nothing. From the linked report:
As you can see, he's making a fuss over the wrong kind of heat.
6. I
really got miffed at the 1 hour mark in the film when he decided to take matters in his own hands and "Back Trace" the climate prediction models. A four-year-old could have seen through what he did there; he simply said "If our global temperature rises by X degrees in 100 years from now, then 100 years ago we MUST have been X degrees cooler... And since this isn't the case, their warming models are all wrong.
Wow, the lameness of this argument was epic. AGW supporters aren't saying it's a solid trend, in fact they call it climate CHANGE.
Just. Damn. Sad.
I could go on all day about that film but I think you get the point. He just kept making points that sound good in theory but basing them off of cherry-picked data and explaining why he thinks that the IPCC and Gore are wrong.
It's Amateur Opinion.
And it's full of holes I could drive a mac truck through.
Bottom line:
If you were planning to learn how to fly, which of the following would you ask to train you:
A. A licenced pilot with a high degree of training himself
B. An amateur pilot with no license, who talks big like he has flown "lots" before.
?
The 13-page PDF linked above references every little word to the most highly respected Climatologists.
???
