Your ad hominem aside, I’m responding critically to a film that intentionally misleads.
It opens with scenes of disaster from the greatest scare-tactic trope of the last ten years, with quick cuts, from smouldering 9/11 wreckage to rushing ambulances, with ominous music - then cuts to clear skies, building tension.
Their first climatologist mentions a change in temperature over three days, and the film is edited so as to make it seem as if he is claiming that this one small set of observations is climatologically significant, which is an arguable proposition, not truth. The quote used “from a layman’s perspective” juxtaposed with the scientist’s perspective, setting up a dichotomy between the ignorant viewer and the all-knowing expert. So we are to trust this guy, because he is a scientist, that a one-degree change over three days is somehow significant, despite the absence of any evidence of this.
Then the narrator repeats the error of confounding climate and weather: “No one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast.” Well, of course not. Because no one who knows anything about climate will speak of the climate changing over the course of three days, because climate refers to long term weather patterns over the course of years and decades and centuries, not daily observations.
That is the pattern of the film: take a fairly weak assertion, and transform it into ominous fact, then back it with emotional imagery.
It goes on:
“Two years ago most of them had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong.”
What about two years hence? If their models were wrong two years before this aired, then why should I have any confidence in the models they are using now?
I could go scene by scene, but the introduction sets the overall tone of the film. It uses repeated images of “biblical scale” disaster to support its implication of impending doom visually. It almost continuously uses this imagery to scare the viewer, rather than convince the viewer with data and facts. A few examples suffice to show the tone:
Narrator: “Global dimming is a killer. It may have been behind the worst climatic disaster of recent times, responsible for famine and death on a biblical scale. And Global Dimming is poised to strike again.” Emphasis mine
Quoted newscaster: “Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers here is the closest thing to hell on earth.” Emphasis mine
These statements, with their biblical references, are juxtaposed with scenes of famine and starvation, to drive the point home.
As for the cause? We move from the cautiously tentative scientist:
“So what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the 1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America affecting the properties of the clouds and cooling the oceans of the northern hemisphere.” Emphasis mine
to an unwarranted exaggeration and predictions of doom:
“Rotstayn has found a direct link between Global Dimming and the Sahel drought. If his model is correct, what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store.” Emphasis mine
A “slight reduction in Global Dimming” led to more disaster:
“Forest fires devastated Portugal. Glaciers melted in the Alps. And in France people died by the thousand. Could this be the penalty of reducing Global Dimming without tackling the root cause of global warming?”
What is the evidence that European pollution caused these localized disasters - a drought in the Sahel, fires in Portugal, heat-related deaths in France, melting glaciers? Where is the hard evidence? There is none. There are correlations which “suggest” that the droughts “may” have been caused by large scale effects in turn possibly partially caused by pollution. It is far more emotionally satisfying to say that the evil factories of the developed world belched out death to Ethiopians.
(I strongly urge anyone who is interested in that famine to look up some of the political factors that contributed to the disaster - droughts are not unknown in the Sahel, nor anywhere else: it may be better to seek explanations rather than try to pin blame. What is the explanation of prior droughts and famines? Of droughts and famines that predate the industrial age? Have all possible explanations really been investigated, or is this just the use of a conveniently established trope, a meme that thanks to previous publicity - Live Aid, e.g. - already resonates with the public, especially the British public, and is thereby fit for exploitation as a propagandistic tool?)
It should be obvious at this point that I have not simply invented this “biblical crap”, it is the filmmakers who have consciously used it to buttress their gloomy outlook. They use imagery of immense and tremendous catastrophe, on a “biblical scale”, repeatedly, with CGI to help out with fakes where the real imagery is lacking, so that they can wantonly exaggerate claims, to the point where their last and most pessimistic expert sounds credible. The worst case scenario that is presented is both bogus and intentionally misleading. There is nowhere near anything like a consensus among climatologists that such a worst case scenario is even possible, much less likely.
Here are some examples of the more explicit imagery:
15:09 Famine (Genesis 12:10, and many other references)
36:42 Deadly Heat - “Savage Summer of 2003” montage with enormous fire, lingering death, coffins (Genesis 19, and many other references to rains and lakes of fire)
40:35 Flood - complete with faked image of Trafalgar Square underwater (Genesis 6-9)
41:18 Fiery Death of forests - with the claim that with a 4 degree rise the Amazon forest will catch fire, then turn into desert, complete with faked satellite image of a burning Amazon (cf. Jeremiah 21 “I will punish you as your deeds deserve, / declares the LORD. / I will kindle a fire in your forests / that will consume everything around you.” - or Ezekiel 20:47 “I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it.”)
42:38 Drought and famine in England - England turns to a desert (cf. 2 Samuel 21:1 “During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, ‘It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.’” - substitute England for Saul, and Ethiopians for Gibeonites.)
43:26 Sandstorm over London (faked) (cf. Proverbs 1:27: “when calamity overtakes you like a storm, / when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, / when distress and trouble overwhelm you.”)
44:29 The boiling, roiling oceans themselves catch fire (Job 41:31 “He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.” - it is also a reference to a lake - an sea, actually - of fire, or Hell itself)
I could go on, do a scene by scene critique - there is no lack of material - but I think I’ve spent as much time with this film as I want to.