Washington Times: Climate-change film fails to repeat success of ‘Inconvenient Truth’
“Even Hollywood could not give Gore’s climate turkey sequel a mention at the Oscars,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” slated for release Feb. 26 by Regnery. “When a politically correct film like Gore’s is dissed, it means it was below even minimal entertainment standards,” he said in an email. “Gore’s dismal sequel did the impossible, it made Hollywood turn a blind eye to climate change issue!” The snub capped a somewhat disastrous year for Hollywood films with climate-change themes such as “Downsizing” and “Blade Runner 2049,” which flopped at the box office.
The skeptics’ website Climate Depot challenged more than a dozen of the film’s assertions in an extensive fact-check, while climate blogger Joanne Nova accused Mr. Gore of relying on “cherry-picked extremes.” Mr. Gore, the former Democratic vice president, has not responded publicly to the criticism.
“An Inconvenient Sequel” is among the most controversial and polarizing titles of the year. Because of the politics surrounding Gore and climate change, the film divides men and women, critics and fans, and even people who saw the movie and people who are just rating it.
Gore is a capable documentarian, but he’s also a guy for whom 51 million Americans voted and 50.4 million other Americans voted against1that one time. Climate change is equally divisive. And those politics are coloring the film’s internet reception. Of the 2,645 IMDb users who rated the film as of August,2 over 38 percent gave the film a 1 out of 10. Of those same 2,645 IMDb users, just under 34 percent gave the film a 10 out of 10. In short: 72 percent of people who rated the movie gave it an extreme score, a 1 or a 10...It’s frankly impressive for a single film to stand astride so many fault lines.'
Vegans were left scratching their heads at Al Gore's new movie An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which despite looking at environmental issues, almost entirely overlooked animal agriculture's giant contribution to global warming. It's particularly surprising, given that Gore has been following a plant-based diet for several years.
"A number of recent climate change reports even failed to mention polar bears in their discussion of Arctic sea ice decline. The polar bear does not get mentioned once in the draft of the US Climate Science Special Report, even in the fifty page discussion on changes in the Arctic. And NOAA’s annual Arctic Report Card has not mentioned the polar bear since 2014, in spite of highlighting the dangers faced by bear populations in every issue since 2008. Even Al Gore seems to have forgotten to include the plight of polar bears in his newest climate change movie. Though it had a prominent role in his 2007 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, the polar bear example was left out of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. It doesn’t even get a mention. After years of campaigners’ and researchers’ claims that populations were in terminal decline, the ‘canary in the coal mine’ has been retired. It is now widely understood that polar bears are not suffering as predicted from years of low summer sea ice. There have been no new reports of falling polar bear numbers, and images of fat, healthy polar bears abound."
Climate Depot reviews Gore's sequel: 'Stand up and cheer' moment when U.S. exits UN Paris pact - 'Unexpected hero of the film -- Trump!' - 'A tour de force' to see U.S. exit UN Paris pact.
'Who would have thought that a film that featured weather disasters and apocalyptic predictions of climate doom would have a happy ending! The ending has a stand up and cheer moment when President Donald Trump announces the U.S. is exiting the UN climate pact.'
'A tour de force to see the U.S. executive branch under Trump returned to a pro science agenda by rejecting UN treaty and EPA climate regulations!
Gore exploits victims of Typhoon Haiyan in Philippines: 'The most single most disgusting moment of the sequel. The viewer cannot help but feel that Gore is shamelessly exploiting the victims and using their pain to score unscientific political points about Typhoon Haiyan.'
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi will apparently gather in the Netherlands. There, along with Bill Gates, UN head Antonio Guterres, and personnel associated with the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, they’ll attend a climate summit hosted by the Global Center on Adaptation. ...
We’re told this summit "will launch a comprehensive Adaptation Action Agenda to kick start a transformational decade."
Donna Laframboise: "The chutzpah is astonishing. The global economy is in tatters. Billions face an uncertain future. Health care workers are exhausted. Yet this Clique of Self-Important People™ is full speed ahead, determined to impose its climate vision on the rest of us."
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."