Thin Ice Climate Movie

Today is Earth day and the official launch of the Thin Ice Climate movie, which is downloadable for free from here – Thin Ice Climate.

It is the creation of geologist and amateur cameraman, Simon Lamb. The spiel:

In recent years climate science has come under increasing attack, so geologist Simon Lamb took his camera to find out what is really going on from his climate science colleagues. Simon followed scientists at work in the Arctic, Antarctic, Southern Ocean, New Zealand, Europe and the USA.  They talk about their work, and their hopes and fears, with a rare candour and directness. This creates an intimate portrait of the global community of researchers racing to understand our planet’s changing climate.

Here’s the trailer:

19 Replies to “Thin Ice Climate Movie”

  1. Well done for making a comment on WUWT. Interesting that the person who immediately responded to your comment was exactly the person I was thinking of when I suggested that – as an experiment – we should get various people to make sensible comments and see what the response is and who makes the response. Admittedly his response was polite in comparison to his normal response to anyone who suggests that there may be something to this whole climate change issue.

    1. Yes, I was expecting a torrent of abuse overnight so switched on comment moderation to my own blog. But there was nothing. Probably the thread it too far back now.

      1. Yes, it was quite mild. I don’t think anyone actually agreed that there might be something in what you were suggesting, but at least there wasn’t actually a torrent of abuse 🙂

      2. True. But it can take a while for people to change their minds. Lots of little seeds planted at various stages that sit in the back of our minds and get considered over time is how we change our views. It would be nice to think I might have planted a seed.

      3. Yes, I think is what I’m trying to do with my blog. I don’t expect to actually know that I’ve changed anyone’s mind, but if some can start to consider the possibility that not everything that climate scientists say is nonsense, it will have been a success.

  2. Rachel,
    This movie is just one more attempt to convince a sceptical public that alarmist climate scientists can be trusted.I do not believe this.Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate breathlessly tells us,”The key messages from this 73 minute film are that scientists can be trusted and that we should stop using fossil fuels.”For Bishop Hill’s comment on this movie,see-
    See also Judith Curry’s post,”Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative?” at Climate etc,dated April 22.She inclines to the negative.By refusing to acknowledge there is a debate and that the science is not settled, the UN IPCC is simply causing doubt in the public’s mind.We have heard the prosecution case again and again and again,but you refuse to hear the other side of the argument .Now ,as with Climate sensitivity, there is an emerging view in many peer reviewed papers that the consensus view of 3 degrees plus is wrong. It is pointless telling me that the majority must be right.
    Love, Doug.

  3. It’s an excellent documentary. I’ve actually watched it a few times 🙂

    Simon Lamb is very objective and you get the impression from the outset, that he wants to resolve the matter for himself and so the movie follows him along on this journey. It is informative and compelling. I highly recommend it, especially if you want to understand some of the science, especially the physics.

    It was also fascinating to see what some of these people do to conduct their research. There’s one guy in New Zealand, who sends a balloon up into the atmosphere, twice a day and has been doing this for the past 40 years! Imagine that!

    The scenery in parts was also very interesting. There is footage from Antarctica and also northern Norway. It was astonishing to see how some of the temperature measurements are taken. For instance, at the New Zealand base in Antarctica there is just a rickety old box outside, that looks as though it’s on its last legs and inside is an old fashioned mercury thermometer. I guess I was expecting something more high tech. And the guy taking the 9am reading remarks that he’s conscious that he doesn’t want to be the first person in 50 years to be hung over from the party the night before and so miss the reading.

    I did not get the feeling that any of these people are alarmists.

    I’m sure you won’t watch it, which is a shame because it was very good.

    On the issue of consensus, a paper has just been accepted for publication at the journal, Environmental Research Letters, which involves a comprehensive analysis of more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers –
    I don’t know what the conclusions are, so we’ll have to wait and see.

    Scientific skepticism is a good thing. The famous mathematician, Bertrand Russell once said, “I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong”. I see skepticism from the scientists involved in climate change because no-one is quite sure how things will play out. There was certainly skepticism in the article you referred me to yesterday at the UK Metoffice. But it was not skepticism about whether human-caused global warming is real. They accepted that this is real. Contrast this with the other article sent to me by Eve yesterday which came to the conclusion that global warming was a hoax because the Northern Hemisphere has had an unusually cold winter. Where is the skepticism in there?

    At some point, you have to weigh up the research on both sides and decide for yourself which has the greater value in terms of integrity, robustness and volume. It’s the same thing when your doctor recommends a course of chemotherapy. There will be some who say no, that homeopathy or some other alternative treatment offers a better cancer treatment and although I don’t want to say with 100% certainty that they are wrong, I am inclined to think that they are. My reasoning for doing so is because the weight of evidence for chemotherapy is greater.

  4. Rachel
    Regarding the SkepticalScience forthcoming paper,I can tell you what it says.It will disclose in excess of 25,000 papers which “support” CAGW,(versus as few as 1200 sceptical ones) , thus “proving” once again that the majority is right.John Cook’s discussions of such a paper were leaked inadvertently last year.
    On the UK Met office paper,you continue to confuse the issue of Global Warming with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ( CAGW).The case you and the UNIPCC have to make out is CAGW,which you have utterly failed to do.
    Your analogy with the Doctor and chemotherapy is false.Chemotherapy has a proven and observable positive outcome whereas homeopathy does not.No reputable Medical Doctor for that reason advocates the latter.On the contrary, CAGW is a recent hypothesis which is unproven and observed phenomena (not GCM’s) do not support the hypothesis.Many Climate scientists deny carbon dioxide rules the climate.
    Also,Chemotherapy,although expensive is affordable as well as being effective,whereas “combating climate change” by Carbon taxes or ETS’s by all indications is neither affordable ( $76 trillion to cap temperature to a 2 degree rise by 2050 ) nor effective.

  5. Rachel, The article I (Eve)sent you yesterday, has Professor David Deming saying that as the years go by the global warming theory more and more resembles a political ideology, not scientific theory. I quote his words, “With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”
    He did not say that global warming was a hoax. They are your words!
    In addition, in response yesterday you referred to an article by Graham Readfern, This same author could not recognise the use of hyperbole and metaphor by Delingpole which somewhat rendered his own article claiming a “death threat”, an exaggeration particularly when Delingpole followed up to explain his use of a metaphor.

    1. I’m surprised to hear you stick up for Dellingpole. I thought the article he wrote was pretty low actually, even for him.

      The current right wing government in New Zealand does not deny global warming or claim it to be a political ideology. Is that what you really think? The only two nations that did not ratify the Kyoto agreement were two right-wing governments: Australia and America. The nations that did ratify it, consisted of both right- and left wing-governments. It looks more to me like the so called “skeptic” club (which I don’t think consists of true skeptics), is those who have decided their position based on their political views, rather than the science.

      Dellingpole, who I think is a truly revolting, admitted on the BBC to not reading any scientific papers –

  6. Rachel,
    I am not interested in anything Joe Romm says about James Delingpole,nor do I believe Delingpole (one l) is “low” because of the metaphor used at the end of his offending column.
    I would be entirely unconvincing if I said I find Joe Romm “revolting”.He happens to express extreme views with which I disagree including this piece.I suspect you read about as much of Delingpole as I read of Romm.
    I think you are ignoring what I keep saying about CAGW.Define global warming.You ask me if I think global warming is “real”or a political ideology.I have acknowledged repeatedly that carbon emissions cause some atmospheric warming but I deny that there is any scientific evidence of their driving catastrophic warming.The point that Deming makes is that CAGW has become a political ideology for some scientists and people like Bill McKibben at,Joe Romm ,and NGO’s like Greenpeace, and indeed the bureaucrats at the UNIPCC.They are not interested in scientific enquiry or further scientific papers unless they acknowledge the “consensus”.Any dissent is immediately stigmatised.Fortunately dissenting papers are appearing in increasing numbers.
    The right wing governments of USA and Australia are already vindicated in refusing to adopt Kyoto.Kyoto is a monumental flop.It is ironic that the US has surpassed its (notional) Kyoto targets while Europe has failed to meet its.I note that NZ has declined to join the post-Kyoto club along with Canada ,Russia,India, China, USA etc.etc.
    Lastly, not being American or a devotee of SkepticalScience,I prefer the English spelling ,”sceptic”.

    1. I didn’t notice that Romm had written that article. I posted the link for the video clip of Dellingpole in which he says he doesn’t have the time to read scientific papers. Did you watch it?

      Catastrophic is a very subjective term. I’ve never used it in my discussions with you. However, if I lived in a hot place like Brisbane and knew that the world was getting hotter, I’d think that was pretty catastrophic. If however, my home was Greenland, I might think it was rather nice.

  7. Rachel, You in fact drew my attention to Delingpole (see your Readfearn comment in Peer Review and Hot Cross Buns). It was obvious from Readfern’s article that he hadn’t been able to recognize Delingpole’s use of metaphor and hyperbole (or “hyperbowl” for our P.M.) and hence his article, your reference, not worth reading.
    Another journo you cited recently, Monbiot, recently sent tweets accusing an innocent Conservative peer in England of pedophilia. It makes me wonder about the credibility, bias, and ability of those you follow.
    You are entitled to your opinion of Delingpole but whatever your personal views and bias, it is important to stick to the facts and leave out the ad hominem attacks as well as the appeals to authority you are so fond of. There is no room for them in a properly conducted debate.

  8. For my readers, Monbiot has written “An Abject Apology” to Lord McAlpine –


    he has also reached a “remarkable and eminently decent settlement” with him – – which involves carrying out charitable work for the next three years on behalf of three charities of his choosing.

    George Monbiot has integrity.

    On the other hand, we have Delingpole who makes statements about climate science in newspaper articles without having read a single scientific publication, who also calls for climate scientists to be tried in court with penalty of death and who misquotes scientists in his newspaper articles. These are the facts. Let my readers make up their own minds.

  9. Of course Monbiot had to grovel and apologise. McAlpine would have sued the a*** off him for a record amount in England and Monbiot would have been bankrupt as a consequence. I hope
    George is enjoying his charity work!

  10. Monbiot also wants a world parliament. I would hate to see Australia and New Zealand having to bow to some remote authority and lose their independence. The authorities in Brussels who sanctioned the raid on individuals bank accounts in Cyprus (one old Aussie Cypriot, a seller at the Sydney markets, woke to find his life’s savings reduced by 80% to $200,000) are criminals! Controlling us through climate is but one step to world governance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s