Must-Watch Video

Courtesy plomedia, highlighted by Climate Denial Crock of the Week.


50 responses to “Must-Watch Video

  1. If I’m not mistaken, the narration is a reading of an op-ed written by’s Bill McKibben, which ran in a number of different outlets.

  2. I knew bits and pieces of it had been quoted before as part of Bill McKibben’s essay, but pulling the essay up with Google, yes, it appears the narrative in the video is faithfully following the text of the essay.

    Tue May 24, 2011 AT 12:09 PM PDT
    McKibben on Tornadoes: Keep Calm and Carry On

  3. Your embedded video’s screwed up formatting in Safari, at least ….

  4. Watching the Deniers

    That is one of the best I’ve seen.

  5. Thank you so much. Carried the video post-haste to a long running climate change denier thread, with plan to repeat the link multiple times so it might finally come across, to a few.

    Pine Island Glazier, 175,000 km square and in some recent times said to have lost 16 meter “off-the-top”, in a year. That’s allot of cubic kilometers of ice tonnage taken off a land surface.

  6. Gavin's Pussycat

    “Damn I wish I’d done this” — Peter “Greenman” Sinclair.

    Envy is the sincerest flattery.

  7. Read this in the Post – the video is very well done.

    And very disturbing. As it should be.

  8. Horatio Algeranon

    Don’t ask, don’t tell
    — by Horatio Algeranon

    One must not try to draw connections
    Between tornadoes, floods and droughts
    Of global warming predilections
    We really must maintain our doubts —

    Even if Tornado Alley
    Is chalking up a record tally;

    Even if the Texas climes
    Are worse than those of Dust Bowl times;

    Even if the Russian summer
    Begins to be a royal bummer;

    Even if the Mississip
    Floods New Orleans on its trip;

    Even if all these weather extremes
    Are something from our haunted dreams.

    Nay, better to view the recent events
    As unrelated to fossil burning.
    …Though scientists say it makes some sense
    Given the things they have been learning…

  9. Here is another approach to the CET – SSN (non) correlation.

    • W Scott Lincoln

      The “geo-magnetic gradient?” Sounds sciency. It clearly must be the cause of everything.

      • Thanks for your erudite comment, however it is possible that you made a wrong assumption. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but a reasonable correlation is a prerequisite. Essence is not in the opinions which are not supported by reliable data. Deficiency in understanding events is not good enough reason for a summarily dismissal. Purpose of science is not to acquiesce but to progress; it is moved forward not by a belief but by questioning of the existing tenets. History notes independent thinking, not a subservient compliance. I whish you success in whatever research or contribution to the science, climate or otherwise, you may be engaged.

  10. Tallbloke swears by it …

    • (tallbloke subscribes to vukcevic fantasies, unless it wasn’t clear … the video’s great, and I doubt tallbloke could stand to watch it through)

      • ‘Fantasy’ based on data as a forward perception of reality vs. delusions of self imposed denial of in the past experienced reality.

        [Response: Please try to be a bit more coherent.]

  11. Those of you who are looking for a mainline “tornado fix” should check out the video at:

    For full effect, set your video player’s display mode to “full screen” and crank up the volume to 11.

  12. This is the best climate change-related video I have ever seen. Too bad it won’t change the close-shut minds of most deniers. As we know well, no matter how bad things get, they will always find a reason to claim that the changes are not at all related to our green house emissions. “It’s all part of the natural cycle,” or “it’s God’s punishment for allowing gay marriage,” or some other similar nonsense.

    We are no better than bacteria growing in a closed bottle of broth. We will consume every possible resource, and excrete every possible molecule of detritus, until half of us starve and the other half is killed by the excretions.

  13. Very powerful…

  14. Spot on video.

    Here is another just out, gain clear, consice and to the point .

  15. Re moderator note:
    [Response: Please try to be a bit more coherent.]

    Interaction between geomagnetic field and ocean currents as well as with the polar vortex are known to be bidirectional.
    “TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining Subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, we find that the subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s.”
    If the current climate change is the cause of slowdown in the SG, and this is reflected in the secular variation of GMF, which in turn interacts with the Arctic vortex, important climate factor, then we have a closed feedback loop.
    All stuff of some conjecture, but strong correlation is indicative of a possible link.
    ‘Fantasy’ based on data as a forward perception of reality.

    • arch stanton

      Holds at least as much credibility as the popular Sheep Albedo and Pirate theories of warming, and uses much bigger words.

      They must love it at Watt’s

      • Mr.Stanton
        Thank you for your contribution. In my research I am guided by the data available and basic principles of physics, but at this blog by its title ‘open mind’, which best of the science always is, and not by multiplicity of opinions with a wide range of factual credibility.
        There are as many ‘Pirate theories of warming’ as there are days in a year, but lets remember not every piece of research or paper published leads to a breakthrough, but every honest effort is worthwhile of attention.

        As far as WUWT is concerned I can say with a high degree of certainty that you are factually incorrect in your assertion ‘They must love it at Watt’’s‘.
        I am just about tolerated by vast majority, most of my posts are vehemently attacked by the resident scientist (Dr. L. Svalgaard), even managed to get me a temporary ban there, as well as 1 year ban on the SC24 blog.
        AS far as Sheep Albedo is concerned, I am not familiar with you research in that particular field, but whish you success.
        I will be happy to answer any sensible and relevant questions from anyone here or elswhere regarding data or other matters outlined in the article

      • “most of my posts are vehemently attacked by the resident scientist (Dr. L. Svalgaard)”

        Given that Svalgaard only attacks the craziest anti-science posts that crop up at WUWT, what does this tell us about vukcevic’s “scientific theory”?

      • As I said above, the blog’s title ‘open mind’, which the best of the science always is, it leads me to think that its readers and contributor are too.
        Rationality of an idea can often be reflection of its creator’s state of mind.

      • As I said above, the blog’s title ‘open mind’, which the best of the science always is

        Actually, not. The best of science is not open to the idea that if I drop an apple, it will fly up 30,000 feet into the air and destroy an airliner. The apple will fall down.

        “open mind” references to the plausible, not the psychotic.

        It pains me to see that WUWT and Tamino’s blog might both unite in declaring you “crazy”, because part of me is pained to accept that WUWT can ever be correct in anything.

        But apparently, if the crazy is crazy enough, Watts can do so. I’m surprised, actually. You really are nuts if Anthony Watts won’t push your shit. Remember Goddard and his CO2 snow in antarctica?

      • arch stanton

        “All stuff of some conjecture, but strong correlation is indicative of a possible link.”

        I agree with this statement.

        My open mind tells me that the probability of the possibility of a significant link is pretty far out there on the tail.

    • It pains me to see that WUWT and Tamino’s blog might both unite in declaring you “crazy”
      No need for pain, there’s a fine line between genius and insanity, and some people happily oscillate on both sides of that ‘fine line’.
      Perhaps you may whish sign off with you real name, Don.

      • vukcevic:

        Perhaps you may whish sign off with you real name, Don.

        Oh! You know how to use google! Just like Anthony Watts does! And for the same purpose of what, intimidating me by revealing that my first name is “Don”?

        I’m a shiverin’ in my boots, indeed!

        What is it with the denialist crowd and their “outing” of people’s names, particularly when any clown who can type into google’s search form will find it themselves after perhaps 15 seconds of effort?

      • No, it was just a try, since I vaguely remember meeting briefly someone in Colorado some 10 or 11 years ago with a similar name.

    • Tamino, I might consider taking Milivoje A. Vukcevic a bit more seriously. It is clear from his webpage at:

      w w w . v u k c e v i c . c o m

      … that a great many official organizations do. As his webpage informs us regarding the seminal “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity” treatise of 2004,

      The paper (*.pdf) or its abstract can be found in the Archives of :

      Arxiv –/0401107
      ITEP – Institute for Theoretical and Expermntl Physics Moscow, Russia –/astro-ph/0401107
      LANL – Los Alamos National Laboratory –/0401/0401107.pdf
      YUKAVA – Institute for Theoretical Physics, Japan –/abs/astro-ph/0401107
      Harvard (USA) –/
      Cornell (USA) –/0401/0401107.pdf
      Southampton University (UK) –/0401/0401107.pdf
      Universität Augsburg, Germany –/0401/0401107.pdf
      Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Italy –/0401/0401107.pdf

      Furthermore, it states that the work is

      Also in the National Archives of:

      Australia, India, Sth Korea, Brazil, Israel, Spain, China, Italy, Taiwan, France, Japan, Gr. Britain, Germany, Russia, USA –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf –/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf -/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

      However opaque his work might appear, clearly he has made quite the international splash!

      • Mr Chase
        Not every acorn grows into an oak tree.
        Progress is in the name of science. Here is something that also may amuse you.
        I am grateful for the Mr. Tamino’s hospitality, and as a visitor it would be uncivilised to break any of his house rules.
        If you whish to know more about my background there is also: followed by

      • vukcevic wrote:

        Not every acorn grows into an oak tree.

        Quite true. But the acorn from 2004 that you have used and continue to use for your home page and calling card is quite suggestive of the nature of your strategy to date.

        First, a purely mathematical exercise in curve fitting to model the sunspot cycle. You use periodic functions where your function fits best during the most recent major period that began about 1925, lags during the preceding one that began about 1815 and leads in what little of the one prior to that which is visible.

        Two and a half major periods in an attempt to reduce the behavior of the solar cycle to a periodic phenomena when it as a chaotic system we expect it to manifest quasi-periodic behavior of the sort described by the data, not your function. Going back to Tamino’s earlier piece:

        There seems to be a rash of trying to explain global warming by theories that either ignore, or flatly contradict, the science called “physics.”

        Often they involve some mysterious “cycle” (usually a 60-odd year cycle) which is claimed to be “obvious” but doesn’t stand up to analytical scrutiny….

        February 26, 2011

        Second, you attempt to inflate the reception that it has received by referring to it as being in the archives of a long list of organizations and nations when in actuality it has only made it into, a website that maintains only certain minimal requirements. These include that a paper be on topic and involve no profanity. Then articles get mirrored independently of any merit by the lists whose members you have named.

        Where others might choose to celebrate one of their greater achievements it is an acorn that occupies your place of honor. And by your own admission this nut appears sterile.

        Starved for attention? Is this why you are seeking it on the blogs where you provide links to charts proving your pseudo-physical numerology?

        What? You actually have a theory? Why then aren’t you publishing in the peer-reviewed literature? No one there will take you seriously?

        Vukcevic wrote:

        Here is something that also may amuse you.

        I see a graph with a reference to Central England Temperature and sunspot number plus your two R2s (which suggest a fitting to what I haven’t the foggiest) then where you try to fit an R2 to integrated sunspot number. More curve-fitting, this time without the benefit of any explanatory supporting text.

        … and then another piece in the puzzle clicks into place:

        …. This is suggested as a cause of the global warming that’s been observed over the last century or so — or at least, the cause of so much of it that it enables one to minimize the warming due to man-made greenhouse gases.

        February 26, 2011

        We understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect quite well. We are able to measure the absorption of thermal radiation by carbon dioxide in a classroom. We understand the different quantized modes of excitation that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are subject to in terms of quantum mechanics. We know that the band in which carbon dioxide absorbs the Earth’s thermal radiation is centered at 15 μm and we are able to measure it.

        We are able to see the signature of different atmospheric constituents in the downwelling surface and upwelling top of atmosphere radiation. We are able to image the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to its absorption of thermal radiation from satellites and compare this against flask measurements aboard planes, demonstrating that the two different means of measurement closely correspond to one-another (within 2 ppm).

        When we satellite image carbon dioxide by means of its absorption of thermal radiation we are simultaneously imaging its greenhouse effect. If you reduce the rate at which thermal radiation escapes to space you are reducing the rate at which thermal radiation and thus energy escapes to space. And you look at my avatar that is precisely what you see: plumes of carbon dioxide imaged by their absorption of thermal radiation, their greenhouse effect, rising off of the east and west coasts of the United States. Images from data obtained by the Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder aboard the Aqua satellite in July of 2003.

        We also know that but for the 11-year cycles solar activity was flat throughout nearly all of the second half of the 20th century — since roughly 1962, then trailing off towards the end. Starting with a system that is roughly in balance, then keeping the rate at which energy enters the system roughly constant while decreasing the rate at which energy escapes the system, given the principle of conservation of energy the amount of energy within the system must increase.

        And so it has. Just as legislation in the modern industrialized world of the time brought reflective aerosols under control while the levels of carbon dioxide continued to climb we saw the beginning of the modern age of global warming around 1975. And it continued, with the rolling 12-month global temperature anomaly reaching a new high just after a long, deep solar minimum and the warming effects solar insolation should have been weakest.

        Well-established physics argues for the role that carbon dioxide plays in regulating the rate at which thermal radiation and thus energy escapes from the Earth’s climate system. Satellites corroborate this, climate models based upon the principles of physics argue for the role that methane, carbon dioxide and water vapor and feedbacks (think melting sea ice exposing dark ocean that better absorbs thermal radiation) play in 20th century temperature trends and more generally play in regulating the Earth’s temperature.

        Then the deep paleoclimate record demonstrates that when supervolcanoes have erupted in the past, not only did they jack up the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but that global temperatures followed suite. (For a fair number of links on supervolcanoes and information on the greenhouse effect please see my recent earlier comment here.) Furthermore, the more recent paleoclimate record of 420 million years strongly suggests that the fast-feedback Charney climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide has been fairly stable and in the neighborhood of 2.8°C, roughly where more current studies and physical models would place it.

        Now if your apparently ineffable theory that hasn’t withstood the light of peer review explains the rising temperature of the globe, what physics would you have us suspend so that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not play that role? What evidence would you have us sweep under the rug and how many largely independent lines of investigation and actual peer reviewed papers would have us simply ignore?

      • Mr. Chase
        Thank you for your extensive post. I shall read it when I have some time to spare. I know very little about the CO2 molecular physics or chemistry, so I’ll leave it those who do.
        I happen to know some details about geomagnetism and that is where my attention is concentrated. Currently ‘degree of certainty is uncertain’.

  16. The back ground music was ok but not great. I still prefer the trailer to 2012. When is it theatres?

  17. I hope whoever did this reads
    and then reflects on the damage s/he has just done.

    It really is not working.

  18. Kloor’s going to attack anyone who points out any possible negative consequence to global warming. He’s definitely in the camp of 1) it’s not going to warm as much as scientists say and 2) it will be just fine, anyway, without any government intervention to reduce GHG emissions.

    God could whack Kloor upside the head with stone tablets confirming the case for global warming and the harmful consequences that follow and Kloor would attack both the message and messenger.

    Perhaps Margaret should focus her ire on the person killing the messenger rather than the messengers themselves.

  19. Margaret’s comment smacks of infant level use of reverse psychology. The video is just about as effective as it could get.

  20. Ray Ladbury

    Kloor is a classic example of a “lukewarmer”. Acknowledge all the science. Just don’t allow anyone to do anything to save our sorry asses. This attitude is even more reprehensible than that of the delusional idiots over at WTF.

  21. John Brookes

    Fantastic video.

  22. > arxiv
    Those are mirror sites for the arxiv file system.
    Finding the paper at mirror sites does not imply endorsements

  23. dhogaza, you and I have sparred a lot of times, but the line “open-minded refers to the plausible, not the psychotic” should live beyond eternity.

    • Thanks, BPL, and congrats on getting your paper published (which I’ve stated elsewhere, but possibly where you no longer read).

    • BPL, it is great to see that your peer reviewed paper has been published. I just found out about it reading here. I have been focusing mostly on genetics and evolutionary biology recently. Sometimes I find programmed cell death and viruses more cheery topics, oddly enough. But I found myself a copy and will be reading it forthwith.


    • Ray Ladbury

      Huzzah! Barton, congrats on the publication. Great news–not just for you, but also because it makes some important points.

  24. bpl, I agree. Thanks dhogaza.

    I’ve copied it into my quotable quotes – even though it’s pretty unforgettable.

  25. Mr. Chase
    I have quickly scaned your post. Only matter of substance in which both of us might have some interest is the CET-SSN correlation graph:
    So I shall explain in more detail:
    -Blue line is the CET anomaly (reference average value from 1659-2010) from UK met office data file (11 year r.m. or moving average)
    -Orange line is the integrated sunspot number (from 1620as available -2010) and subsequently normalised to CET (note SSN can’t be <0, although it is plotted as such for a clearer visual reference).
    1. red line R^2 for Y to Y=2000.
    e.g: say correlation CET-SSN for CETs and SSNs records from 1820 -2000
    -draw a vertical line from 1820 to intersection with the red line reading R^2 = 0.3 for that period, which is about average all the way 1900, but still not significant enough. From around 1900 – 2000 CET-SSN correlation is just not worth mentioning.
    2. magenta line is for any 100 year period, hence as in the above example CET-SSN correlation would be for period 1820-1920. Using same vertical line, it shows R^2=0, i.e. CET-SSN records correlation for period 1820-1920 = 0.
    There is no curve fitting there, correlation is calculated for every single year for both:
    1. gradually diminishing period to 2000, starting at 1670 up to 1970, the last correlation entry is for period 1970-2000.
    2. sliding 100 year period ending at 1900, the last entry is 100y correlation for records up to 2000
    It is first time that anyone has reproduced such graph, which appears to be a devastating blow to any hypothesis which suggests that rise in the CET is due to solar activity as demonstrated in the available record SSN.
    Now, if you or any of blog readers have any questions on this, I consider to be a ‘revolutionary’ diagram, I am happy to answer.
    I shall not waist either my or your time with the rest of your post, since I am not bothered either by critique or positive appraisal; I just deal with the data as available.

  26. v ,

    How do you calculate a correlation for one year?