One commendable feature of “Climate: The Movie” is how well organized it is. Mr. Durkin discusses various aspects of climate change one at a time, starting with the science of climate change, warm and cold periods in Earth’s history, the role of carbon dioxide and other factors (e.g., solar activity and cloud cover) in affecting temperatures, the political corruption of scientific research through the control of vast amounts of federal funding dispensed to various scientists, and the bullying that led to the establishment of a mythical “consensus” on climate change, and closing with sections titled “Climate versus Freedom” and “Climate versus the Poor.”
The value of his organization of the film into a series of related but distinct issues is immense.
Let’s say a viewer disagrees with the descriptions of temperature change as benign and nonthreatening or with the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the “knob” controlling the world’s temperatures. (Here I wish he had included more information about how beneficial the increased concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has been—specifically, how much land has been greened and how much agricultural productivity has been enhanced by the CO2 enrichment of the past century or so.)
Maybe a viewer isn’t ready to admit that the government has played such a massive role in commandeering scientific research that the so-called settled science is nothing but government propaganda. Even then, a viewer who is genuinely concerned about human well-being should be willing to ponder the movie’s points that the alarmists’ alleged remedy involves a massive loss of individual liberty and that they are advocating anti-human policies that would oppress the world’s poor and retard, if not thwart completely, their attempts to climb out of poverty.
The movie is well-paced. This is no easy accomplishment, since any discussion of the science of climate change inevitably involves the depiction of graphs and a series of talking heads to explain the significance of various data. At times—particularly when going deep into our planet’s history—the director resorts to using cheesy film clips from the 1950s or earlier. This actually helps counter any tendency toward monotony that can come from overexposure to talking heads.
Speaking of talking heads, the ones in this movie are noteworthy. They include a Nobel Prize winner in physics, a founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, and scientists and professors at the top of their professions, some of whom have served as science advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents.
One thing a viewer may notice is that most of the talking heads are senior citizens. The reason for this seeming imbalance is explained in the narrative: Younger scientists seeking funding for their research and job security have to keep quiet about any doubts they have about the alarmist scenario or else they endanger their livelihoods and careers. The movie raises the crucial point: If scientists aren’t free to tell the truth, how can the rest of society remain free?
Prediction: You will hear alarmists trash this movie ferociously. Who can blame them? After all, we all know that the truth hurts.
