The other point which this film took great care over (as they all do) was to ensure it didn't present any evidence to back up Global Warming. Oh it made assertions and vague comments, but not anything you could check. Just in case you did. He didn't ask why the 'scientists' claim that you are not allowed to debate Global Warming (when did that represent 'empirical science'?) nor look at sceptics claims of falsification of data. You wouldn't want to muddy the water and confuse the simple plebs who you want to pay, would you?
I did agree that the best and simplest explanation came from a US teacher and his risk analysis. Unfortunately for the film maker he thought the smug assertion in support of Global Warming was brilliant. The guy said the question was do we take action which will cost us an enormous amount of money, or do nothing, in which case catastrophe could happen. Oops!
I also liked the CO2 destruction of Monckton near the denouement. The claim was that 750 million years ago there was 30 per cent saturation of the atmosphere with CO2 and the world was an ice ball, so CO2 doesn't lead inevitably to Global Warming. The 'scientists' said that he was using a greenhouse gas to prove it isn't, which is mad. Er, isn't it the 'scientists' who keep telling us that CO2 will, as day follows night cause the temperature to rise?
Then the film ended with patronising comments and a summary that proves the big money supporting the carbon industry is right; heatwaves and freezing weather and floods all happening around the world. Even Sherlock would be surprised.