Climate Change

Published on April 14th, 2014 | by Derek Markham

56

New TV Series ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ On Climate Change & Near Future (VIDEO)

April 14th, 2014 by  

Originally published on Planetsave.

yearslivingdangerously

The subject of climate change and global warming is a divisive one, because while the science is sound, there seems to be no lack of climate deniers.

However, a new TV series that started airing this Sunday aims to get a larger number of people connecting dots on climate change, and could be the catalyst for national (and international) conversations about one of the biggest issues facing the human race in the near future.

The show, called “Years of Living Dangerously,” features some big-name stars, such as Harrison Ford and Don Cheadle, and is produced by one of the most popular producers in Hollywood, James Cameron.

“It’s the biggest story of our time. Hollywood’s brightest stars and today’s most respected journalists explore the issues of climate change and bring you intimate accounts of triumph and tragedy. YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY takes you directly to the heart of the matter in this awe-inspiring and cinematic documentary series event from Executive Producers James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

The series kicked off on Sunday, April 13th at 7:30 PM ET on YouTube and 350.org (on Showtime at 10 PM ET), and 350.org is looking for some folks to help build the buzz about it by hosting a local watch-party at their home or business. If you’d like to host one, get the details at 350.org.

Years of Living Dangerously is a nine-part series, with the rest of the episodes airing on Showtime.


Check out our new 93-page EV report.

Join us for an upcoming Cleantech Revolution Tour conference!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

lives in southwestern New Mexico and digs bicycles, simple living, organic gardening, sustainable lifestyle design, slacklining, bouldering, and permaculture. He loves good food, with fresh roasted chiles at the top of his list of favorites. Catch up with Derek on Twitter, RebelMouse, Google+, or at his natural parenting site, Natural Papa!



  • Common Sense

    Does it concern anyone that many of the assertions made in this documentary are contrary to the IPCC’s findings? Is it possible that in an effort to convince people that climate change is a serious issue James Cameron has left the science behind?

    • Bob_Wallace

      Would you list those assertions so that I know what you’re talking about?

      • Common Sense

        The idea that recent droughts and hurricanes were made worse by climate change. The IPCC states that it has low confidence that there is any current effect of climate change on the intensity of droughts or hurricanes.

        • Bob_Wallace

          That’s one. “Assertions” is plural.

          And while you’re coming up with the rest of this list check this graph of Atlantic named storms.

          • Common Sense

            Droughts and hurricanes. That’s two assertions. The documentary spent a lot of time on these ideas. My question is does it concern you that the film is making assertions that go against the IPCC? If the point of the film is to win people over to your point of view then is it a good idea to distort the facts to scare them into believing what you believe? IMO this tactic will only work in the short term…if it works at all.

          • Bob_Wallace

            What concerns me is people showing up and making statements they can’t back up.

            It causes me to think bad things about them.

          • Common Sense

            I only pointed out that the film goes against what the IPCC has stated regarding the effect of climate change on hurricanes and droughts.

          • Common Sense

            Hey Bob. Are you deleting my comments?

          • Bob_Wallace

            None of your comments have been deleted. (I haven’t deleted any, nor has anyone else. I checked the Deleted folder.)

          • Bob_Wallace

            You are charging that the film is making “many” assertions.
            OK, so you found one thing. One single thing. (You attempted to spin it into two, but that was a fail.)

            Here’s what you need to do. Either list “many” or apologize for your misinformation.

            That’s just common sense.

          • Common Sense

            A drought is one thing. A hurricane is another thing. This is not misinformation. Those are two types of weather events. The film is making assertions regarding these two events that are not supported by the IPCC.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’m sorry. For some strange reason I was reading “drought” as “tornado”. You are right. You listed two.

            Two, however, is not “many”.

            Now, let’s see the rest of your list of many. If you don’t have any more then you might follow my example and apologize for making a mistake.

          • Common Sense

            1. The drought in Texas.
            2. The drought in Syria.
            3. Hurricanes.
            Rather than splitting hairs why don’t you respond to my question?

          • Bob_Wallace

            That’s two. Drought + drought = droughts.

            I’ll get to your question when you finish answering mine.

            Next post how about you list “many” or admit you don’t have a list of “many”?

          • Common Sense

            So do you think it is okay to exaggerate to convince people to agree with your point of view? IMO this will backfire and cause people to become more skeptical. If you look back on the public opinion polls you can see that in the short term Al Gore’s movie was effective and many people believed global warming was a serious issue after seeing his film. In the long term when people began to realize just how much he distorted basic facts to make his point, people become more skeptical. Another movie that distorts the basic facts won’t change the minds of these people. They have already been down that road before.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Ah, now how about listing the distortions in Gore’s movie?

          • Common Sense

            If you are interested you can Google it for yourself.

          • Common Sense

            The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
            The
            film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
            causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court
            found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in
            CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
            The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
            The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
            The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.
            It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four
            polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
            storm.
            The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
            The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
            The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
            The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
            The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In
            fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about
            40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat
            of massive migration.
            The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz2z4vj2PWN

          • Bob_Wallace
          • Common Sense

            Bob. You are free to believe what you want. Here is how the other side views James Cameron’s latest film.
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/14/exploiting-human-misery-and-distorting-the-science-an-environmentalists-critique-of-years-of-living-dangerously/

          • Bob_Wallace

            Like anyone with a brain cares what Anthony publishes?

          • Common Sense

            Great point. Nothing on his website has any merit. When he points out that a thermometer shouldn’t be located in the middle of a parking lot then he is way off base?

          • Bob_Wallace

            I did not say that nothing has merit. I’m sure an actual fact sneaks through now and then.

            As for locating a thermometer in the middle of a parking lot, there’s nothing wrong with that. The actual temperature is not used, but the changes in temperature. Anthony fell on his butt with that line.

            “However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

            More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.”

            http://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

          • Common Sense

            Skeptical science? Are you aware of what Richar Muller has to say about the Michael Mann’s work?
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

          • Bob_Wallace

            Look, you’ve used up your opportunities to put up or shut up.

            You want to talk the climate change denier stuff? This is not the site.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’ll repeat myself one more time.

            This site does not offer a soap box for climate change deniers.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I haven’t watched the documentary and you haven’t listed the “many” so I can’t deal with those specific issues. But I can tell you a bit about the IPCC report.

      There are 195 different countries that have some control over/input to the report. That leads to fairly conservative reporting on the science. We have studies tying climate change to observed droughts, for example. Those studies are not old enough or well enough backed up to convince all the participants.

      The IPCC report is best read as a modest reporting. Which has value. But the outcome of making the wrong decision by being “modest” is incredibly intense.

      Imagine. You go out to check your mail and find someone has tied a pipe bomb to your mailbox.

      You call the police. They bring in their bomb experts. They can’t defuse it so they are going to have to explode it in place.

      One tells you that as long as you’re standing 20 feet away you’ll be OK.

      The other one tells you that you should be at least 50 feet away to be totally safe.

      To which do you listen? Go modest and see if 20 feet was enough?

      • Common Sense

        Will it cost me a trillion dollars to stand 50 feet away? I am afraid your simplistic scenario has no application to a discussion about where CO2 levels in the atmosphere ranks and whether we should spend trillions to have no noticeable effect on the global average temperature.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I guess you haven’t read that the IPCC report says that preventing climate change costs would be modest, about 0.06% of world GDP.

          • Common Sense

            What? I guess you haven’t read the Senate hearing findings where they point out the cost to our economy with no change in global temperature. All that I am saying is that money should be spent based on a careful cost benefit analysis.

        • Bob_Wallace

          “a discussion about where CO2 levels in the atmosphere ranks and whether we should spend trillions to have no noticeable effect on the global average temperature.”

          And with that post you identify yourself as a climate change denier.

          I’m going to give you a simple choice. You can a) post no more denier junk or 2) you can go away.

          If you’d like to stick around and discuss renewable energy you are welcome.

          • Common Sense

            How does that make me a “climate denier?” I don’t agree with you that CO2 in atmosphere will cause a major calamity so I’m a denier? It’s okay for posters to say they think climate change will kill everyone but I can’t point out that the IPCC reports don’t support such statements? That is just bias. Plain and simple bias.

  • thezeitgeistmovement.com

    Showtime may not be a mainstream channel, but it is still a big name channel (like HBO) and has many viewers. I hope that this show, along with the new Cosmos, get the ball rolling on clearing up the confusion of man-made climate change that have been purposely propagated by the fossil fuel industry.

    • Common Sense

      My concern is that by not sticking to the facts Mr. Cameron is giving ammunition to fossil fuel industry.

      • Common Sense

        It is too bad that this website won’t allow any alternative view points. You will never win anyone over to your point of view with that attitude.

  • “This is the biggest story of our time”… I disagree, it’s the ONLY story of our time. Until people realize that the continuation of the human species hangs in the balance (not to mention most higher life forms). I see this “story” growing in urgency and consequence every day.

    I don’t have Show Time but I hope that all of the episodes get posted online anyway. The premier was powerful and should change some denying minds.

    • Common Sense

      Can you please let me know the source of your belief that “the continuation of the human species hangs in the balance?” I haven’t seen that in any of the IPCC reports.

  • The science does not support the fear mongering presented in this documentary.

    Read

    Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting the Science: An environmentalist’s critique of “Years of Living Dangerously”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/14/exploiting-human-misery-and-distorting-the-science-an-environmentalists-critique-of-years-of-living-dangerously/

    • Bob_Wallace

      Really? You bring a link to Anthony’s site as proof of anything?

      • It was my essay that I posted on WUWT. Most CO2 advocate websites are not open to publishing opposing arguments. You seem to be blinded by you beliefs and refuse to read a good argument just because it is on skeptical site and therein lies our problem. Try reading my essay and argue the facts presented. They are all referenced to peer reviewed literature. Then we can discuss the scientific arguments and avoid the politics of bashing the arguers.

        Nobel physicist Richard Feynman portrays a good scientists as having “ a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”

        • bill

          Please give us a break dude. You clowns all play the same game. You are not trying to prove that climate science is wrong… you are just trying to demonstrate that there is an actual debate by convincing people to argue with you. If anyone argues with you.. then YOU win no matter what is discussed. Give us a break… Go away…

          • Bob_Wallace

            Yes, Jim. We aren’t going to furnish you a soap box to spout denier nonsense.

            If you think you have a real case then take it Skeptical Science or Real Climate.

          • Amazing logic?!?!? If we have a respectful debate then I automatically win? Leave so you remain undisturbed in your narrow beliefs? Spout my nonsense? My essay presented nothing but peer reviewed science but somehow that is threatening? I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at such nonsense.

            Obviously this site is inhabited by a few blind CO2 devotees incapable of critical scientific discussion. It is amazing that some believe that by simply discussing ALL the evidence they believe the truth is perverted. That you fear any respectful discussion could somehow create an imagined tipping point that could endanger the world, suggests you are ensconced in a religious fervor that is the antithesis of scientific investigation. Amazingly I would bet you believe you are being scientific? Again, as a scientist, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at such nonsense.

            Are you really that afraid, that by merely reading my essay, you and the rest of world will be led astray and rendered incapable of thinking for your selves?? Again I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

  • Omega Centauri

    I think it was reddit who when banning denialist comments realized there were not very many of them, but they are very prolific. I see, you’ve already attracted one here.

    I question the impact of this series, unless/until it appears on a mainstream (not premium) channel, how many will see it?

    • Bob_Wallace

      This is also a low tolerance site.

      • Common Sense

        You would think that information that indicates that climate change is not as bad as once thought would be welcome news. If you don’t tolerate such ideas then…..that says more about you then the person pointing these things out. You should open your mind and try to look at things from another point of view. Dr. Richard Muller is not a “climate denier” (whatever that means) and neither am I.

    • The denialist trolls are becoming more shrill as the evidence against them mounts. I see that whatever comment you are referring to is already gone.
      Way to go, Bob.

      • Ross

        Apparently some of them have invented a new term CAGW; Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. They’re now claiming it won’t be Catastrophic so no need to take preventative measures.

        • I find it dismaying that so many people hang onto the delusion that “everything is going to be OK”, it won’t. Of course when the vested interests continue to pump out there swill and governments are cowed (if not outright bought) it’s understandable that people are confused. It seems to me that a lot of folks rail against the anthropomorphic part (it’s our fault) and feel innocent. Individually we were all born into this energy paradigm and are thus innocent. It’s only when confronted with the evidence that altering the chemistry of the atmosphere has been a blunder and they still deny reality does guilt enter the equation.
          As I sit here in PA where it’s going down to the mid teens tonight after being in the eighties two days ago due to a destabilized jet stream people don’t realize that it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If we continue on the way we are headed (and I don’t imagine that we won’t) the resultant climate changes will no longer be deniable but it will then be too late to do much about it.

          • Common Sense

            Are you aware that the latest IPCC report has downgraded their projections? It would appear that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower then they originally thought. Isn’t that great news? What do you worry more about clean air, water, and food or CO2 levels?

          • Bob_Wallace

            What do I worry most about?

            Within the range of topics under discussion climate change is number one. It has the ability to screw over all of us on the planet and pretty much every other living organism.

            The nice thing about dealing with climate change is that it will also help our air and water problems.

          • Common Sense

            True. Unfortunately it is a very expensive way to deal with air and water pollution. Are you aware that the warming effect of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is logarithmic?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Are you going to present your list of “many”?

            Or are you going to attempt to tap dance your way to a different topic?

      • Common Sense

        You will never win over the other side by calling them names. If you don’t win over the other side then you will never pass climate control legislation through the House or Senate.

        • Are you offended by the “name” denialist trolls? At this point I have come to realize that I’ll never be able to ‘win over’ anyone. If you can’t figure this thing out for yourself I can’t help you. When the problem becomes obvious to the likes of Inhofe, Simkis etc then we will get legislation. Doesn’t matter as it will be too late. If I were in a bad mood and wanted to call names I’d use various epithets along with calling them F*%ktard morons.
          Please explain “logarithmic” as it relates to CO2. I understand the word but not in a climate context so I don’t know what you are implying..
          Your reading of the IPCC report must have been different than mine. What do I care about, clean air, water, food or CO2?
          If we don’t find a way to remove CO2 and CH4 from the atmosphere there won’t be any food or clean water.

  • ctmusc

    “The science is sound”? WHAT! The science predicted global temps would rise in step with carbon dioxide(wrong for 15 years now) and no amount of flat our lying can cover that up.

Back to Top ↑