Uploaded May 2025 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Tom Nelson, producer of 'Climate: The Movie,' challenged me to a debate to answer my correction of some of the errors in 'his' movie. See youtube.com/watch?v=HhAX42dT09w&t=1910s
I happen to be in London at the moment, and since we are only a few time-zones apart, I agreed.
At first he wanted to talk about other issues, but I said that he had wanted a debate about the movie, not my feelings and beliefs, so that's what the debate needs to be about. He wrote: "I will absolutely defend Climate: The Movie in a long-form, man-to-man debate with you.
So I suggested he pick three topics related to his movie and my critique, and I would pick three.
We agreed on a 90-minute debate, but because I am not subscribed to Zoom, we had to log out every 40 minutes and log back in again. So we did that by mutual agreement whenever we moved from one topic to the next. Hence this debate is in three parts.
I had no doubt he would try to move the conversation away from the movie every time he ran into difficulty, and wander off into other areas, hoping I would take the bait. I have spent nearly 40 years interviewing politicians, diplomats and government officials who use exactly the same tactic, so I was prepared to wait out his adventure into the clouds and then bring him back to the point.
Conspiracy theorists, of course, who live by beliefs and strong opinions, will think Tom's diatribes perfectly stuck it to the conspiracy of scientists. That's fine, no change there. But I think a lot of people may hopefully see the difference between shedding light and merely shedding heat.
Tom Nelson, producer of 'Climate: The Movie,' challenged me to a debate to answer my correction of some of the errors in 'his' movie. See youtube.com/watch?v=HhAX42dT09w&t=1910s
I happen to be in London at the moment, and since we are only a few time-zones apart, I agreed.
At first he wanted to talk about other issues, but I said that he had wanted a debate about the movie, not my feelings and beliefs, so that's what the debate needs to be about. He wrote: "I will absolutely defend Climate: The Movie in a long-form, man-to-man debate with you.
So I suggested he pick three topics related to his movie and my critique, and I would pick three.
We agreed on a 90-minute debate, but because I am not subscribed to Zoom, we had to log out every 40 minutes and log back in again. So we did that by mutual agreement whenever we moved from one topic to the next. Hence this debate is in three parts.
I had no doubt he would try to move the conversation away from the movie every time he ran into difficulty, and wander off into other areas, hoping I would take the bait. I have spent nearly 40 years interviewing politicians, diplomats and government officials who use exactly the same tactic, so I was prepared to wait out his adventure into the clouds and then bring him back to the point.
Conspiracy theorists, of course, who live by beliefs and strong opinions, will think Tom's diatribes perfectly stuck it to the conspiracy of scientists. That's fine, no change there. But I think a lot of people may hopefully see the difference between shedding light and merely shedding heat.
