Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Jonathon Natsis Cool It is a documentary about climate change. But before this sends anyone who has ever listened to five minutes of talkback radio running for the slowly-rising ocean, be aware that this is a doco with a difference. Here there are no doomsayers; no scare tactics; just one man and his quarter-trillion dollar plan to fix not only climate change, but many of the world's most urgent issues.This one man is Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and world betterment maverick. His unique approach to the issue of global warming, in which he shoots down almost every public policy on the issue in preference of rationality, has earnt him equal parts admirers and demonisers. The film excels in its biting criticism of the Western and developing world's approach to the problem. Lomborg doesn't argue that we aren't doing any good, but rather that we are not maximising our return on the social good generated per dollar spent. He deconstructs and demolishes projects like 'Earth Hour' and the 'cap and trade' scheme (similar in nature to Australia's freshly-implemented carbon tax) with an engaging tone that makes sense to even the most apolitical viewer.Given the film's subject matter, it is only a matter of time before the inevitable comparisons to An Inconvenient Truth arise. Here, Lomborg, with the help of articulate talking heads from all over the world, picks apart the 'blatant scare tactics' used by Gore in a manner that is, if nothing else, an intriguing exposition on the behind-the-scenes agendas of documentary filmmaking.The final third, in which Lomborg recruits scientists to justify the mechanics of his plan, can be occasionally hard to swallow, particularly if one's knowledge of physics ended on the last day of Year Nine. And yet, this late onslaught of high-level science only lightly sours what is a wholeheartedly thoughtful experience. *There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. So drop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what you thought of my review. If you're looking for a writer for your movie website or other publication, I'd also love to hear from you.**

tom-hite I've read that polar icecaps are unusual in the history of planet earth. I've read that the polar sea wasn't frozen a few million years ago (a short period of time geologically speaking) and I've read that Antarctica had lush forests and fauna just a few million years ago, and that lost ecosystem is now buried under miles of ice. And even more worrisome would be if a large volcano where to erupt and block the sun for a year or more. We would really want as much global warming as possible in that case. Further I read that when the earth gets colder and has polar ice caps that the weather is much more volatile and extreme. And except for the past couple of hundred years the earth was drifting deeper into a polar ice period with temperatures getting colder and colder. This sounds awful. By sheer dumb luck, man is making the earth warmer. And perhaps better than ever.I also wonder if scientists are given grants based on the "scariness" of their investigations. Perhaps scientists are more likely to get grant money if their predictions are dire.I also read that farm land become more productive the warmer it becomes.With these notions above in mind, I was a global change skeptic of sorts. Then I watch this film and my skepticism has hardened considerably. I now I pity/fear/despair anyone that carries on about carbon footprints, global warming or polar bears. And to watch giant corporations engage in fear mongering about global warming is truly alarming.If you like to talk about this subject, no matter what your position is on global warming, you need to understand the ideas in this film to avoid looking stupid.

MonganD I saw this on cable, twice now. The first time it was on in the background while I was working and I found that I couldn't work; it was just too interesting. The second time I sought it out, set a reminder to ensure I didn't miss it, and set aside undisturbed time so I could pay attention and LEARN.Unlike most modern documentaries, which contain barely disguised sarcasm (think Michael Moore) rather than factual discussion, or which lecture without informing (think Al Gore) this film is a combination of facts (with references) and lectures with a common sense approach rather than Al Gore's "I know more than you do" doctrinal catechism.Starting with his own background and disfavor in the mainstream climate change community, the film agrees that climate change is a problem to address, but then moves through several climate change "remedies" which have been proposed, looks at the cost, and then uses the same amount of money to address the climate change issue as well as hunger, education and disease. Turn off the lights for an hour? It's a great feel good remedy but it doesn't do a thing to help the planet, and lighting a candle is actually worse. Buy a hybrid? It has almost no impact.The gist of the global warming debate, we learn, is fear. And taking on Al Gore point by point we learn that our fear is misplaced. Hurricanes cause more severe damage nowadays, but there's more people living at the beach and more high rise buildings to be damaged too. Was New Orleans flooded because of a global warming induced Hurricane Katrina, or because a levee was poorly designed? Moving on to solutions, we learn about alternative energies, alternative strategies, and more, and finally the final cost for all these strategies is so low that other world issues like hunger and disease are easily paid for with the same investment that Al Gore would ram down our otherwise-frightened throats.Before you pay a "carbon tax," and buy a Prius, see this movie. And don't be afraid anymore.

ockraz Bjørn Lomborg is an environmentalist and an economist. He accepts without reservation that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activity, but he makes a critical examination of the methods by which we're attempting to deal with the problem. In other words, he disagrees with those who would say that climate change is not a real and serious problem, but he is skeptical of the primary strategies to combat the problem which have been advanced by mainstream environmentalists.He's become controversial because he's asking questions of fellow environmentalists which they would rather not have to answer. Are climate change activists engaging in alarmist scare tactics and exaggerating the dangers involved in an attempt to motivate through fear? If we wish to invest in attempts to improve the lives of those who are most disadvantaged, what is the relative benefit of spending on climate compared to other humanitarian endeavors?Are attempts to artificially raise the price of fossil fuels likely to be successful at lowering temperatures? Will they be sufficiently effective to justify the costs in terms of slowed economic growth and lost increases in the standard of living? Lomborg seems to believe that the most reasonable approach is a combination of:>engage in many relatively unobtrusive small scale activities to combat global warming in the short term while contributing more to efforts to promote global health and education >employ geo-engineering and adaptation in the medium term to minimize the disruption of temperature increases >make large immediate increases in funding for research and development of renewable energy and more sophisticated nuclear reactors so that in the long term alternative energy will not be more costly than fossil fuelsHis arguments about what the rational approach (lacking the unreflective dogmatism of both the deniers and the alarmists) is to finding the best future for the global population certainly merit the time it takes to view this film.