"The Uncertainty Has Settled", a feature film shot using Magic Lantern raw video

[IronFilm]

On 10/13/2017 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Reid said:

The science is far from settled, for example on the topic of renewables and the management of food, land and the agricultural economy. Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply. Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.

I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.

Freeman Dyson is a giant in the world of math and physics. 

As for myself, I'm not Freeman Dyson, but I know a little about it from my science degree in mathematics (with almost a 2nd major in physics, plus I taught mathematical modeling to undergraduates at university for many years). 

Thus I know more than enough to be highly skeptical about mathematical models being pushed for a political purpose! 

I suppose many of heard of the famous saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!""

Well mathematical models can be misused and abused even worse than statistics can be!

However, I loved mathematical modeling, and it is an extremely important area of study, that has many very useful applications. 

Just don't be ever taking them immediately at face value! Especially not in highly politically charged situations. 

[IronFilm]

On 10/13/2017 at 1:36 PM, fuzzynormal said:

ML-RAW for a doc is overkill as far as I'm concerned, but if it floats their boat, grab that tiger by the tail. 

Raw (ML Raw or anything else) in general is overkill for a doco in 97% of situations!

23 hours ago, sanveer said:

Absolutely Incorrect. 90-99% of the Main Stream Media is Left (/Libertarian) Controlled and Funded. Therefore the Majority of Right (/Conservatice) Wing Media is relegated to Alternative News Streams and/ or channels with high viewerships but very uninspiring monetary models.

 

Say what?! You lumped Left and Libertarianism into the same thing??

 

[ND64]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

"I've come to realize the public at large does not have my educational attainment"

The internet never fails to entertain me for all the wrong reasons.

I once worked on a simulation based on state of the art climate model when I was helping my sister for her master thesis. Had to study many things to figure out what's going on. And I was blown away by the magnitude of uncertainty we had to deal with. These people think they're the only ones who play with these toys.

[RogerJp]

That camera set up seems masochistic : )  I can't imagine shooting a documentary in raw on the 5DII and trying to focus with that VAF filter in the way. Add Minolta adapted lenses on top of it- this is really quite a contraption and my hats off to them for pulling it off!

I got into environmental documentary making because too many of the ones I watched had a shallow understanding of the issues, particularly their social and political contexts. This film seems to have fallen into similar traps by conflating scientific and political disagreement. When one is not an expert it is very important to figure out who is credible and not to rely on expert sources who are not experts on the subject matter at hand, or even still current in their fields.

Sadly Dyson falls into that latter camp and his criticism of climate models is simplistic and ideologically driven. For a brief treatment of Freeman Dyson's views on climate change and other environmental problems written by working climate scientists, see this post over on RealClimate. RealClimate is also a place to go behind the news headlines and overly credulous assessments of single scientific papers by the press, and to ask questions. The scientists there personally answered my questions related to global warming and helped me understand a disagreement between scientists I had been talking to.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/the-starship-vs-spaceship-earth/
 

Quote

More importantly, all of the things Dyson argues “heretically” should be looked at — e.g. land carbon sequestration or the lessons from the Altithermal period around 8000 years ago — are in fact already being intensively investigated and are not turning up any silver bullets to allay concern about climate change. When push comes to shove, Dyson is really only offering warmed-over standard contrarian talking points. Heresy, or more broadly an outsider’s viewpoint, can be a good thing when it shakes loose new ideas. But surely, we have a right to expect a more original form of heresy from the architect of Dyson spheres and nuclear starships.

In short, it’s not so simple as the ‘self delusion’ Brower talks about. Dyson is not doing science, but he is deluding others under the guise of science. Given’s Dyson’s evident love of science (and expertise in it), that’s the part that we still don’t get.

 

 

[PannySVHS]

 

I would like to see this documentary because of the voices themselves, not because of their specific pros and cons regarding climate change. There are more benefits and gains one can get from seeing this. To some it might be the first time they are confronted with this topic in RAW cinematic beauty. Who has watched this film anyhow? Not more people exited about the BTS knowledge, which Andrews article provided?

Also, interesting voices in this movie. As it seems from the trailer, it gives a good overview on players in this field of debate and industry.

I rather watch this movie, instead of just reading an article about it. I would read it afterwards though. Just like I did with Bladerunner 2049 reviews, other than the one from James Bernadelli, which I always have to have a short glance at beforehand:)

 

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Say what?! You lumped Left and Libertarianism into the same thing??

 

 

[PannySVHS]

18 hours ago, Vincent Caldoni said:

the wild places i grew up exploring have burnt. Some of the loveliest places in american wine country are burning and people are dying. Puerto Rico has been destroyed. New Orleans is half the size it was. Climate change is entirely real. People in my country are living it and dying it. There is no debate about it. I don't need a lecture from some ancient austrian economist in a dumb suit to know that the glacier i can see from my house is shrinking. i don't need a fucking documentary liberal or conservative to tell me what i can feel when i step outside, what 99% of scientists agree upon. this doc can go twist for all i care. and so can all these "debaters" enjoy your doom, you made it.

Yeah, I see that point about feeling and actually being lectured without actually being in need of it. Climate change is as real as is the north pole melting. Trailer seems interesting to me, if not as a study, what players are in the field of debate, politics and economics. If not as a study of Canon RAW filmmaking.

[tomekk]

Can someone point me to data/studies about how much impact humans have on climate change vs natural changes that are occurring naturally? I'd love to see some statistics. 

[FilmMan]

Interesting website on the matter.  I'm only presenting alternate thought.  

http://drtimball.com/

Interesting videos on the subject too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaFzhoS67I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrQxidb4xSQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

[RWR]

At first I was annoyed by the disconnect between this site's usual camera discussions and descent into the mire of CAGW.

But then I realized the similarities in terms ever moving goal-posts.

Off I go to "enjoy my doom".

[ND64]

7 hours ago, That Guy said:

This site will be an alt-right mecca in a few years.

in regard to camera gears at least none of us is conservative, let alone alt-right. in regard to social/political matters, its always expected independent content makers reject popular culture, and in our time many liberal/left ideas have become part of the popular culture. 

[Andrew Reid]

Most of the discussion in this thread proves my point that climate change isn't up for debate and very good science will be ignored as a result.

As a liberal creative person I can't even so much as ask a damn question, let alone consider arguments outside my liberal bubble, without the finger pointing of moral condemnation from fellow liberals.

When the simple act of considering some related issues and problems is considered "denial", followed by a lot of frenzied arm-waving idignation and accusations of being alt-right, that is a major problem - and we see it in our politics every day.

This is really unhelpful if the human race is to solve the issues of managing our climate and understanding it better.

Today, we either fit in one camp or the other. To satisfy a consensus you have to either flat out deny climate change exists, or claim that it is all proven, settled and we know everything. Anything else is heresy.

The fact is we don't know it all... we aren't considering some related issues and problems with clean energy sources and impact on agriculture, farmers, food and lives.

This is too complex a problem to pledge allegiance to one of just two opposing dumb football teams and attack it with a tribal mentality.

It's sad to see people do so on this thread without even having watched the film.

[Drew Allegre]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Today, we either fit in one camp or the other. To satisfy a consensus you have to either flat out deny climate change exists, or claim that it is all proven, settled and we know everything. Anything else is heresy.

The fact is we don't know it all... we aren't considering some related issues and problems with clean energy sources and impact on agriculture, farmers, food and lives.

You're missing a huge gap of rationality that roughly sees observable evidence (including objective scientific analysis of that evidence) and consensus among current experts working in the field, studies, etc. very strongly pointing towards one general direction of this debate, but does not argue that "all is proven" or "we know it all".  To claim "we know it all" would be unscientific by definition and pretty irrational.

The problem with climate science is that it's extremely broad, and science doesn't really work well for communicating about extremely broad problems and questions.  Studies on climate science are very specific, isolating specific variables within observable envelopes.  Experts one one study or phenomenon probably aren't experts on another.  There are few people who can broadly talk about climate change with authority, and do so in a way that a lay person can understand.  There are a lot of people who can and are willing to spout sensationalist claims.

Also, debating solutions or responses, and the politics surrounding them have nothing to do with debating the existence or nature of climate change.  It's a separate topic.  If you want to argue something rationally and logically, pick a topic and argue on the merits of that topic, not some tangential issue.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Drew Allegre said:

pick a topic and argue on the merits of that topic, not some tangential issue.

See what I mean, you say I can't debate related-topics to climate change...you tell me that the only topic is whether climate change is happening or not.

Binary thinking my friend... It's not good.

Cleaner solar energy for example is a prevention method, one of many to consider.

It's not a separate topic at all, it's all part of the topic of climate change.

Once you add up all the elements it's a very complicated subject and one that can't be debated from two polar opposite sides.

Which is exactly what our media and politicians have turned it into.

The uncertainty comes when you try to consider the truth! Rather than simply being swayed by binary thinking, tribal behaviour and where on the political spectrum you consider yourself to be.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

See what I mean, you say I can't debate related-topics to climate change...you tell me that the only topic is whether climate change is happening or not.

Binary thinking my friend... It's not good.

Cleaner solar energy for example is a prevention method, one of many to consider.

It's not a separate topic at all, it's all part of the topic of climate change.

Once you add up all the elements it's a very complicated subject and one that can't be debated from two polar opposite sides.

Which is exactly what our media and politicians have turned it into.

The uncertainty comes when you try to consider the truth! Rather than simply being swayed by binary thinking, tribal behaviour and where on the political spectrum you consider yourself to be.

Yup, the issues are almost irrelevant at this stage. I truly believe that the bases of the political parties could be swayed to believe anything their party decides to be behind. And then they unleash the base to be furious and irrational on their behalf. So easily, in America, the Republicans could have a stake in fixing climate change due to their history of conservation and Teddy Roosevelt’s Republican Party. So easily, the Democrats, with their belief in bigger government could be against a woman’s right to choose. The parties align themselves with issues and they expect their flock to rabidly fall into line. Unfortunately, most people are such sheep that they would rather root for their team than acknowledge both sides of an issue. And in this instance, it’s not about acknowledging if climate change is real or not, it’s about how far can we afford to go and how quickly without effing up the world economy. 

[Drew Allegre]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

See what I mean, you say I can't debate related-topics to climate change...you tell me that the only topic is whether climate change is happening or not.

Binary thinking my friend... It's not good.

Cleaner solar energy for example is a prevention method, one of many to consider.

It's not a separate topic at all, it's all part of the topic of climate change.

Once you add up all the elements it's a very complicated subject and one that can't be debated from two polar opposite sides.

Which is exactly what our media and politicians have turned it into.

The uncertainty comes when you try to consider the truth! Rather than simply being swayed by binary thinking, tribal behaviour and where on the political spectrum you consider yourself to be.

What I’m saying is, if you want to have a logical, rational discussion, you have to define a framework for the discussion. You can bring pop culture and politics into the discussion if you want, but then you’re debating something other than scientific research and theory.  

Of course it’s a complicated subject. That’s why no one reads white papers or studies. There are hundreds of them, on different scales, testing different variables in different realms. If you read these things, it’s difficult to weigh one study against another, or to understand a broader context, or to understand the implications of the study at all for that matter. But there does appear to be a trend. 

People have meandering debates about economics and politics and how they feel about this or that. You can play the follow the money game or debate political responses, broad models, sensationalist representations of abstracts. But to what end? People are good at manipulating. I think that’s been established. 

Not sure who in this thread is advocating for binary thinking. 

[Volker Schmidt]

On 17. Oktober 2017 at 8:31 PM, jacoblewis said:

Climate change aside, that footage looked awful. 

I respect your opinion and in this case it´s true: The You Tube Clip does not look good. Edit from the copy, from the copy …. 
Crushed blacks, low resolution.
Even the original Vimeo trailers do not quite correspond to the viewing experience in movie theatres, but look better:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/derbauerundseinklima
Gamma, grading and sharpness are made for cinema.
But this is also a matter of taste.

Watch this clip from Colby Moore:
https://vimeo.com/230165379
Filmed with 5dmk3 and ML Raw.
The capabilities of ML raw are great!

[Volker Schmidt]

... about the controversial topic - here is an interesting article in the NY Times about Robert Zimmer, head of the University of Chicago makes the educator´s case for free speech:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/robert-zimmer-chicago-speech.html

 

 

[IronFilm]

Quote

 

Several years ago Robert Zimmer was asked by an audience in China why the University of Chicago was associated with so many winners of the Nobel Prize — 90 in all, counting this month’s win by the behavioral economist Richard Thaler. Zimmer, the university’s president since 2006, answered that the key was a campus culture committed to “discourse, argument and lack of deference.”

 

Wow! 90 is an impressively large number. 

Quote

Reflecting on that exchange in March, Zimmer noted a depressing trend: While Chinese academics have made strides to “inject more argumentation and challenge into their education,” their American peers are moving “in the opposite direction.” As universities go, so ultimately go the fate of nations.

 

Yes, China has had a problem in the past due to its one party communist rule of not ever being able to question authority, which stifled a lot of inquisitive thought / creativity. 

Sad to see the western world's academia trending in that direction with a lot of areas of discussions being ruled "out of bounds".

Quote

“Our commitment to academic freedom,” he wrote, “means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

 

Quote

 Central to the committee’s findings: the aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.

“Concerns about civility and mutual respect,” the committee wrote, “can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

Those are fighting words at a time when professors live in fear of accidentally offending their own students and a governor needs to declare a countywide state of emergency so that white supremacist Richard Spencer can speak at the University of Florida. They are also necessary words. That isn’t because universities need to be the First Amendment’s most loyal guardians — in the case of private universities, the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply. They set their own rules.

Instead, it’s because free speech is what makes educational excellence possible. “It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears,” Louis Brandeis wrote 90 years ago in his famous concurrence in Whitney v. California.

It is also the function of free speech to allow people to say foolish things so that, through a process of questioning, challenge and revision, they may in time come to say smarter things.

If you can’t speak freely, you’ll quickly lose the ability to think clearly. Your ideas will be built on a pile of assumptions you’ve never examined for yourself and may thus be unable to defend from radical challenges. You will be unable to test an original thought for fear that it might be labeled an offensive one. You will succumb to a form of Orwellian double-think without even having the excuse of living in physical terror of doing otherwise.