Join DeSmogBlog's James Hoggan at the Vancouver International Film Festival Oct. 6th

age of stupid

Join DeSmogBlog president Jim Hoggan at the Vancouver International Film Festival on October 6th for a public screening of the new climate film ‘The Age of Stupid.’

Jim will be on hand to sign copies of his groundbreaking new book Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.

Date: Tuesday, Oct. 6th, 2009    
Green Carpet: 6:00pm - 7:30pm    
Screening of The Age of Stupid: 7:30pm - 9:00pm    
Q&A: 9:00pm - 9:30pm   
After Party: 9:30pm - 11:00pm      
RSVP: [email protected]      


5th Avenue Cinema
2110 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC, V6K 3H5

*DeSmogBlog is a co-sponsor of this special event.

The Vancouver International Film Festival runs October 1-16 and features public screenings of The Age of Stupid as part of its extensive environmental program, The Way of Nature.

The Age of Stupid is the new four-year epic from McLibel director Franny Armstrong.
Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite stars as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?

This event is presented by PowerUP Canada, a leading voice for strong laws, investments and policies to support the expansion of a clean economy and combat global warming.  PowerUP Canada recently launched “Time to Get Serious on Climate Change.”  Follow their climate blog at

Critical acclaim for The Age of Stupid   
The Age Of Stupid is the most powerful, well-researched and emotional films that I have seen in recent memory. The choice is ours, do we listen to the message it so clearly lays out, or ignore it, at our peril. I can only pray that we have the wisdom to make the right choice”.
– Ed Begley, Jr.          

“It is a captivating and constantly surprising film: the first successful dramatisation of climate change to reach the big screen”.
– George Monbiot, journalist & author, The Guardian

Critical acclaim for Climate Cover-Up
Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime.”
DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a Change.

“An exposé of planetary scale.”
JAMES E. HANSEN, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

“This book explains how the propaganda generated by self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change. It’s an imperative read for a successful future.”
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer


i guess its too late to include the discovery of fraud in the tree ring study. i am going to make a movie about a guy living in the year 2010 where he looks back at the inconvenient truth movie and cries about the end of peer review as we know it. then fast forward to 2055 where we can see him asking why we were so stupid not to listen to the science behind say o2 depletion in the atmosphere. and we didn’t listen because people no longer trust the scientists. someone should ask leonardo (did he graduate from college?)who really “purposely created confusion”? sad day for the alarmists. peace, rich

what’s bizarre? people, you have been scammed.deny that THEE study for this “abnormal temp” graph, which set the stage for your movement, wasn’t a scam…nothing adds up from your side. all we want is to look at all the facts, all algore wants is to silence the debate and hurry cap and tax. why would someone deny discussion? hey ben, make sure you read all the responses to your comment on the mckitrick article in the financial post. it says it all.

1. Why are you claiming fraud? And if you believe it is fraud, could you please tell Steve McIntyre, he claims that his wording expressly indicates he does NOT believe there was fraud.

2. Since when is the hockeystick the ‘stage for ‘the movement’? Already in 1995, THREE years before Mann et al published anything, the IPCC scientists already indicated that AGW was occurring.

3. Since when do any questions on tree rings in ONE place invalidate those in MANY OTHER places?

4. Since when do questions on one tree ring set invalidate the results of various other proxies?

5. Since when do questions on one tree ring set invalidate the temperatures measured either by thermometers or by satellites?

”Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming ”

By Ross McKitrick

Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.
But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent. They are written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy series over and over.

Read more:

Read more:

Read more:

i believe that this article will answer all your questions. using data sets that give a certain outcome isn’t fraud? Q.#5?? not sure i follow this?

And there is a really good paper describing just that, that the Medieveal warming period was warmer, in other words, the CO2 scam is a political trick of AlGore.. (and the denialists are 100% right!)

.. ”

4 Conclusions

Previous climate reconstructions based on tree-ring data
from Tornetra¨sk were biased by a divergence phenomenon
in TRW around AD 1800 and therefore show erroneously
low temperature estimates in the earlier part of the records.
Tornetra¨sk MXD does not show this ‘‘divergence problem’’
and hence produces robust estimates of summer temperature
variation on annual to multi-century timescales.
The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in
the new Tornetra¨sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales,
periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were
all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this
new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on
AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other
paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia,
although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra¨sk suggests
that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.

so we want to nail down what really happened during the mwp if we can.

Maybe we just can’t know the state of global average temperatures way back when.

This is a problem with the scientists. They have a hard time saying “we don’t know - or we can’t know or we can’t measure this or that or we are making some big assumptions here” It’s basic human pride.

I “don’t know” that slamming my hand in the car door will be incredibly painful. I can model it. I can seek historically relevant data. And then I can make an intelligent risk analysis. Or I could take McIntyre and EdB’s advice and let ‘er rip. Gee, what should I do?

So what if the medieval warming period was warmer. What does that prove? No one is denying there have been warm and warmer periods in the past. Do denialists hinge their whole denialistic religion on the fact that at one time the climate was actually warmer? If so, they are even more ridiculous than they appear to be.

I wouldn’t call myself a denialist exactly, but obviously the question is whether modern temps fit in with natural variation. If they do, then we don’t have to do anything drastic especially in times of economic hardship.

I’m happy with the assumption that they don’t and we have unnatural warming and so we should see what we can do about not burning stuff and making the economy work some other way. I don’t think anybody has really figured out that combo yet though. The burning continues.

Well, natural variation is all over the place, depending on how far back you go. During the PETM (55 million years ago) global average temps were approx. 9 degrees F higher than now. The estimated CO2 levels were 700 ppm. These figures developed over a 20,000 year period. Many scientists feel we could reach the same levels of CO2 by 2100.

My basic point previously was that just because there were warmer periods in the past as a result of strictly geological and/or biological forces, does not mean that all warming periods or climate variation must be caused by natural forces. Therefore, the MWP is not a lynchpin in the denialist argument as some of them seem to think.

Why did the “team” set out to get rid of it back in the 1990’s??

(a scintist is on record as being asked “to help get rid of the MWP”.


your logic about how the MWP is not important must be lost on the warmist team.

I personally would like to melt off Greenland enough to grow trees again and have a 6000 person community there. It would make a nice tourist spot.

If we melt it off completely, we get to rid oursleves of all the western coastal cities with their huge populations, their self righteous, hedonistic carbon belching ways and their evil capital resources plus we get new beach front in Greenland! win - win!

just kidding :)

You have just found a paper discussing temperature at ONE place in the world, and believe that invalidates all other work. Who cares about the stuff done at other places, right?

…it does not answer a single of my questions. It’s just another opinion piece with the claim of fraud! There have been several reconstructions without any treerings: same result. Even Loehle’s reconstruction shows a sharp upward curve in the 20th century, and he DEFINATELY cannot be linked to any of the ‘Team’ (as McIntyre likes to call them).

Doubts about the science establishment will be an issue. I suspect they will increasingly be seen as politically driven authorities. It’s hard to divorce science from politics.

Do I have to start worrying about Oxygen now?

If O2 depletion is a problem, then the solution would seem to be stop burning stuff. Not burning stuff is the dream answer to O2 and Co2 concerns but I don’t see it happening for a long time yet - too much convenient stuff to burn.

How do supposidly intelligent “warmists” handle someone who is competent and who has proven fraud amoungst the “warmists”(I use the term fraud, not McIntyre. He limits his judgements)

Scream and yell?

Ignore McIntyre?

Hope that you can sell as many “warmist” books or “denier” conspiracy books as you can before the CO2 scam dies in the coming cooler climate?

Pretend to not know who McIntyre is?

Ask for more funds for your green enterprise?

Read McIntyre’s blog, brush up on your statistics, and accept that there is serious problems with the CO2 hypothesis.

You have demonstrated your complete lack of understanding in scientific matters, along with an inability to handle logical thought. Surely you don’t expect us to believe you can handle statistics.

Now what.. did those early proto humans drive SUVs then too?? (if a sudden warming occurred before and Al Gore wasn’t there to write a scary book about it, will the warmists believe it?)

“She and colleagues from around the world now have proof of a sudden, remarkably warm period in Antarctica that occurred about 15.7 million years ago and lasted for a few thousand years”

Even climate scientists who AREN’T “climate skeptics” are complaining about politics producing bad science.(using data upside down.. gee, NEW science as practiced by warmists)(professor Atte Korhola entitled “Recession in Climate Science”)

“when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

It is a translation from a prominent Finnish scientist.

Toinen esimerkki on arvovaltaisessa Science-lehdessä hiljattain julkaistu tutkimus, jossa arktisten alueiden keskilämpötilojen todetaan olevan nyt korkeammalla kuin kertaakaan aikaisemmin kahteen tuhanteen vuoteen. Tulos saattaa hyvinkin olla totta, mutta tapa jolla tutkijat tähän päätyvät, herättää kysymyksiä. Proksi-aineistoja on on otettu mukaan valikoidusti, niitä on pilkottu, manipuloitu, silotettu ja yhdistelty – ja esimerkiksi omien kollegoideni aiemmin Suomesta keräämät aineistot on jopa käännetty ylösalaisin, jolloin lämpimät jaksot muuttuvat kylmiksi ja päinvastoin. Normaalisti tällaista pidettäisiin tieteellisenä väärennöksenä, jolla on vakavat seuraukset.

Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.”

Obviously, these maple trees suffer from stupidity.. don’t they know the earth is getting warmer?

TURN, TURN, TURN: Maple trees in mid-Michigan have begun turning colors about three weeks early, said Bert Cregg, professor of horticulture and forestry at Michigan State University. But no one is “quite sure what’s going on yet” with the trees, he says.”

Since the MWP was warmer than it is now, it means we do not have to worry about the earth getting that warm again idiot. It also means that the temperature can rise or fall drastically, regardless of CO2, idiot.

I don’t know where you get this Mediaeval-Warming-period-was-warmer stuff – I’m not convinced that it was – but it doesn’t matter anyway because that was a regional phenomenon, not a global one. Coming here shooting off your mouth and insulting people while you spout long-since discredited nonsense is just a waste of our time. I’m with the other fellow who has labelled you “white noise,” and is ignoring you. If you ever actually start making any sense, you may find people ready to engage in discussion again.

Aren’t the other temp reconstructions also regional and therefore inconclusive.

To arrive at global temps, they would have to examine trees from everywhere and that means different kinds of long life trees in vastly different climate zones and all sorts of unknown complications - droughts, heat waves, floods, volcanoes, fires, bugs. Do you know if that level of work has been done or is a case of convenient and necessarily regional tree temp reconstruction.

Comment Policy: “Petty name-calling and/or a pattern of disrespect towards other DeSmogBlog users will also result in account deactivation.”

Why bother talking about this guy? Apologies for re-posting an earlier comment I made about this guy. A deep thinker he most definitely is not, at least in terms of having detectable links to the real world.

May I suggest, dont get your scientific information from the blogosphere, which is about the only place left on Earth where there might seem like there is an argument about the correctness of scientific view about AGW. There is no debate in the scientific literature, which unequivocally supports the consensus (but is often more worrying than the IPCCs very conservative positions).

Funding to the deniers are provided by those with an overt agenda, frequently the oil and gas industry or front groups funded by them. These groups are clear that they exist to derail responses to AGW.

Conversely, science in general, is funded by public granting agencies that are very clear that they fund only excellent science and do not serve an agenda (but may address a theme: this is not the same thing). Unless you believe that the whole world is in on some kind of conspiracy, that is, which would be an interesting new take on conspiracy theories. That science is synthesized by the monumental efforts of the IPCC, who summarize ALL science published in the peer-reviewed literature, not just the stuff that Greenpeace wishes they would cover. If they did not do such a comprehensive job, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Canada, etc. would never agree to endorse their findings.

This brings me to the most important point: there is fortune and glory for any scientist who can find an alternative explanation for the masses of independent observational evidence consistent with AGW. I think it’s fair to say that we would really like to be wrong about this science and find it was all a false alarm. The problem is, that this as yet undiscovered alternative explanation actually has to be plausible, and that is where the nonsense routinely coming from Monckton and his ilk falls down. It is also why you will not find them publishing their tirades in peer-reviewed literature. Reason and evidence indicate, rather mercilessly, that the consensus view is almost certainly correct and virtually all new evidence being published daily in the peer-reviewed journals around the world make that consensus stronger and more precise.

If Choi and Lindzen, for example, manage to publish a contrarian paper in the peer-reviewed literature (Monckton babbled a lot about this paper the other day, but managed to misrepresent its contents more or less totally), and they’re right, their views will propagate because their results will lead to better predictions than the previous approaches. But, if by some strange twist of fate, they are incorrect, well science isn’t perfect but is generally very, very good as self-correction. In that case, their paper will be refuted or fade away as a simple mistake.

“Successful prediction is the best evidence that science has an objective grip on reality.” -Gottfried and Wilson 1997 (Nature).

(BTW, how many times do people like Monckton and Ball have to be caught lying publicly before people stop defaulting to the view that they are always telling the truth? 10 times? 50 times? Really, IS there a threshold? The answer to this question, which I think is “There is no limit”, is very informative about the true nature of climate change contrarianism. It’s a political/sociological phenomenon, not a scientific one. The phenomenon allows those with Monckton’s or Ball’s flavour of personality disorder to flourish when they could never do so, and demonstrably never did so, as scientists.)

Now, argue with the arguments if you would like. I will not bother addressing the predictable subset of “rebuttals” that are just randomized reordering of previous insults. Or ignore me. The last strategy is the most sensible one in terms of dealing with Monckton. Not one national leader is left on Earth, not counting the president of the Czech Republic, apparently, who bothers to rake over the dregs of his tired talking points. Why do we?

If there’s anything that I enjoy more than a good laugh over my morning coffee as I tiptoe through the nightly offering of tripe from the resident trolls and zapping spam, it’s a really good, rational and informed plate of crow offered up to them for breakfast. My next stop in the morning routine will be the Guardian, where there will be another story about the president of the Phillipines pleading for action on AGW at Copenhagen while standing in floodwaters up to her waist, or another news release from France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique about the accelerating acidification of the Arctic Ocean due to CO2 absorption. And these jokers are still quoting McIntyre … it defies belief! Cheers, JeTKerr

looks like the repeated lies are from the UNs IPCC..

“In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists tendered a handful of supporting studies. Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the “Hockey Team.” And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith Briffa of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs, derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH’s assertion of unprecedented 20th century warming.

While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa’s. Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on principle.

Which in no way dilutes this plain truth: By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of science.

Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) – notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as lead authors – give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the SPM?

It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.

That is – for the moment.”

But if you want to serve as a mere mouthpiece for this propaganda, you do not need to enter the whole article from the neocon source. You can just give the URL. I do appreciate, for their humour value, your remarks like “most serious persons of science” dont believe in science. It is clear where you are coming from. From your previous posts, it looks like you might actually be paid to troll, but it is hard to tell for sure.

In the interests of possibly sparking an actual discussion based on a contribution from real scientists, please consider this link, which is not spun through any media organization or interest group:

Quotes from the blogosphere, or the media, are not sensible sources of information about this science. For that, you need the scientific literature. Are you arguing that all the nasty rhetoric in the previous article actually disproves the thousands of independently conducted scientific studies around the world that form the basis for the planetary consensus on climate change? I am trying to figure out if I should ever respond to you again. Please: make it hard for me. Say something worth responding to.