My previous post refers. OK, so I went round to a friends to watch the thing. It was fun. My friends weren’t scientists (one of them was a teacher just finishing preparing his classwork on witches, how appropriate), which meant that one of the Big Points (cosmic rays cause weather) elicited laughter rather than belief, because to them Cosmic Rays sounded funny like in Flash Gordon or Star Wars. I hadn’t realised that… anyway, onwards…
[Updates: this is now up at RC; and Wunsch repudiates the prog]
Surprise appearence in the film: Carl Wunsch. Though what he said was not particularly problematic, the context it was put into was. But given the history the producers have of misleading their interviewees, its possible that Wunsch wasn’t made aware of what he would be put into.
Surprise non-appearence: Svensmark. In fact the solar stuff was a bit thin. Apart from the odd talking head and a few graphs, there wasn’t much. Philip Stott got to say “just look at that massive thing the sun. We’re minute relative to that”. Shaviv was there for the solar-ists.
Other surprise non-appearence: the Hockey stick. And M&M.
To take apart their main points:
First point was that CO2 doesn’t match the temperature record over the 20th C. This is true. They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC TAR SPM fig 4. So… they are lying to us by omission. Incidentally their 20th C T pic looked odd – definitely smoothed; I wonder where from.
Second point was troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models. They were on slightly shaky ground here because they were clearly going to have a hard time explaining the very ideas to their audience and didn’t really try. Christy gets to speak; so does Lindzen. No graphs in this section; no mention of alternative MSU records (or the two nice RC posts on this, naturally). And Christy oddly seemed to have forgotten the NRC report he was an author on…
Third was that T leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; of course if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can’t even see the lag because its so small. The answer to this is well known, of course: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.
Then we come on to the solar bit. Curiously no Svensmark (well clearly he had too much sense to appear) but they do have Piers Corbyn instead, oh lucky them, prompoting his solar weather forecasting technique, and we’ll just quietly forget the difference between weather and climate shall we. So, a bit of overlaying of graphs and showing a nice match (using, I think, the solar-cycle length graph – it was hard to tell): so you need to read Laut for that.
And most of the other nonsense you would expect got a brief play at some point, even down to volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.
Then some politics stuff: how its all down to Thatcher who wanted to promote nukes after the miners strike (ah, good to know we’re such an influential nation). Ends up with a bizarre segment apparently blaming the lack of African development on the environmental movement, which somehow seems to have aquired enormous power over this section of the world. No mention that Kyoto exempts developing nations, of course.
[Thanks for various comments on this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports for the pic they (probably) used for the last 1kyr. See here (thanks BJ) for the 20th C plot they used... can anyone find the source of this? -W]