WG II’s sequel to AR5 “The Movie”: More tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom

Readers will recall that on the heels of the release of Working Group I (WGI)’s contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC released a movie and a few days later they decided to disable comments and ratings.

My understanding is that WGII’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) (versions of which have been leaked hither and yon during the past few weeks, along with “traditional” ramping up of the usual scary stories in the MSM) is due to be released on March 31 (which it may already be in Japan).

But regardless of the actual content of the full report – and/or the SPM – the busy-bee movie-makers were ready to roll, today! And … drum-roll, please … roll-out they did:

Second chorus, second verse … a little bit louder and a whole lot worse!

But they seem to have learned some “dialogue” lessons from the experience of the release of the first movie, and they’re taking … uh … no risks, this time!

From the get-go, the powers that be have decided that no comments or ratings will be allowed.

Quelle surprise, eh?!

UPDATE: The awesome Alex Cull has provided a transcript if you’re afraid you might have missed any crucial content in the Movie

8 thoughts on “WG II’s sequel to AR5 “The Movie”: More tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom

  1. “It’s about these inequalities in every society…”
    I couldn’t watch the whole thing. The movie has the same feel as one of those old ads with Sally Struthers tearfully begging for money.

  2. Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
    The lefty press and blogs are all experiencing the joys of ongoing millenarian masturbatory exultation even though most of the world don’t think that this “hammer horror”remake has any virtues at all.

    • Thanks, so much, Alex. I’ve updated the headpost to provide a link to your transcript. They certainly are up to a risky business, aren’t they! When I read their Press Release I noticed that their “Opportunity” count (6) was far outweighed by their “Risk*” count (22). Amazing, eh?!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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