Summary — Climate: The Movie [Full Episode Unlock]

Author/Host: Climate Town

Overview

This episode critiques Martin Durkin’s new documentary Climate: The Movie (a 2024 reboot/sequel to his 2007 The Great Global Warming Swindle). Hosts Nicole and Raleigh watch the film and explain why, despite modest production values, it’s dangerous: it recycles long-debunked climate myths, misrepresents scientists, and is primed to spread quickly via social media.

Key points & main takeaways

• The film is largely a repackaging of the same climate denial talking points Durkin used in 2007, updated for a social-media era.
• Durkin has a history of misrepresenting scientists; at least one prominent scientist (Carl Wunsch, MIT) publicly said he was cut or misrepresented in the earlier film.
• Production-wise the new film is low-budget, uses extensive stock footage and sometimes sloppy interview footage/graphics; nevertheless it looks “professional enough” to be persuasive when clipped and reposted online.
• Disinformation techniques used:
  • Gish gallop — overwhelming viewers with a fast stream of many small arguments and visuals so they can’t easily be rebutted.
  • Appeal to authority — many interviews with older white male “experts,” presented as credible without contextual vetting.
  • Cherry-picking, misquoting, and out-of-context editing of scientific sources.
• Reach and spread: released on Vimeo, multiple reposts on Twitter/X and YouTube reportedly have hundreds of thousands to millions of views (hard to verify engagement depth), making debunking necessary.
• Climate communicators and fact-checkers have catalogued many myths in the film; Catherine Hayhoe noted the film hits around 25 common, long-debunked myths in the first 42 minutes.
• Skeptical Science and other debunkers have produced systematic breakdowns correlating each myth to rebuttals.

Notable quotes / soundbites

• Martin Durkin (promo interview): “It aims to knock the climate alarm on the head as far as it possibly can. And to arm the people who are sort of intuitively skeptical but haven't sort of got the arguments to hand because they've been deprived of them.”
• Host sarcasm: “10 stars out of five.” (used to highlight the film’s appeal to a denialist audience)
• Catherine Hayhoe (tweet cited): “In the first 42 minutes, it manages to hit 25 common and long-debunked myths about climate change.”

Topics discussed

• Background on Martin Durkin and his previous film The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)
• Examples of film tactics and myths (e.g., “CO2 is plant food,” “CO2 is only a trace gas”)
• Specific allegations that scientists were misrepresented in past work
• Funding and production: small budget (~$100k estimated); possible self-funding or small donors; production company history
• How social media amplifies documentary clips and misinformation today vs. 2007
• Visual/technical issues in the new film (inconsistent lower-thirds, framing, out-of-focus interviews)
• Why debunking matters even when content is low-quality: reach and persuasive clipability

Action items & recommendations

• If you encounter clips from this film:
  • Don’t share them without context. Short clips can mislead; add factual context or link to reputable rebuttals.
  • Check full source and provenance before accepting claims.
• For checking claims made in the film:
  • Consult SkepticalScience’s breakdown of the film’s myths (they map each claim to rebuttals and sources).
  • Follow reputable communicators like Professor Catherine Hayhoe for timely debunks.
  • Refer to primary, peer-reviewed science or the latest IPCC reports for consensus summaries.
• When engaging with someone influenced by the film:
  • Identify the specific claim and address it with one simple, evidence-based rebuttal at a time (avoid attempting to debunk everything at once — counter the gish gallop).
  • Point to reputable sources, and explain context (e.g., how scientists are cited and how consensus is measured).
• For communicators and platforms:
  • Flag or contextualize viral clips with fact-check links.
  • Prioritize accessible rebuttals that can be clipped and shared as effectively as the misinformation.

Bottom line

Climate: The Movie recycles familiar denialist arguments packaged to look authoritative. Its low budget and mixed filmmaking do not prevent it from persuading receptive audiences—because of editing choices, appeals to authority, and the ability to clip and spread content online. The episode recommends targeted debunking (SkepticalScience, trusted communicators, primary science) and caution about sharing film excerpts without context.