Before the Flood
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: April 25, 2017
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
I'd like to be clear from the start. This is not a click-bait article for page views. This article is over 6000 words. This is an honest criticism of the Before the Flood 2016 documentary. And with that cheerful note, let the mudslinging begin.
We begin with Leonardo DiCaprio's childhood images of Hieronymus Bosch's religious paintings that has somehow turned him into the Hollywood spokesperson for the global warming...I mean climate change cult...I mean climate change movement.
As the beginning credits start to role, viewers are primed by sound bites and visual images of a carbon apocalypse. Yes, environmental fear mongering is an excellent way to set the stage for an ideological documentary trying to sell a carbon apocalypse to the global public. Well done Hollywood.
We then move to a behind the scenes look at DiCaprio's UN speech. Former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon tells DiCaprio that the Earth is analogous to a small boat in the ocean/universe, and that we have to repair it or we'll all sink together.
Umm...no. As I mention in many previous articles, the Earth exists long before humans come into existence. And it will exist long after we perish. Even nuclear holocaust isn't enough to destroy the Earth. Yes, it will render it toxic for quite some time, but with no humans left...nature will slowly restore itself. And this will take place all without liberal environmentalists and climate change believers trying to tell nature what it should be doing.
Will Ki-moon be making sacrifices to help stop the boat from sinking? Unfortunately, the UN will most likely be the group that tosses out the low-income undesirables. Contrary to what you may believe, the UN, IMF, and World Bank have no interest in lifting people out of poverty. Why not? Because there's value in keeping countries in a developing state (see Part 1 of 9: Season 1, Part 1 - Dry Season).
And with that, DiCaprio becomes the UN's Messenger of Peace. I don't have a problem with the title...as long as DiCaprio refrains from doing any violent movies and lives a minimalist lifestyle.
DiCaprio goes into the usual garbage of...I want to learn about the issues. In reality, DiCaprio's environmental ideologies are already made up (see The 11th Hour Completely Debunked).
I like how DiCaprio believes that the problem keeps getting worse. But worse for who? High income earners around the world are fine. Multimillionaires are also fine. Billionaires are doing fine as well. And the last two categories include Hollywood. Throughout the California drought, what happens to Hollywood? Nothing. They do what they’ve been doing for years. Putting out garbage movies.
And what about all the organic crops grown in California during the drought? Nothing happens to that either. All the stores in California and overseas are fully stocked with California organic crops. The fear mongering is complete garbage. Environmentalists are just trying to prove their own ideologies with ideological science (see Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource).
Worse, many WE scientists are now reinterpreting all past weather/climate through the framework of global warming/climate change. Again, as I mention in previous articles, future scientists will have a difficult time sorting out our past ideological science from objective falsifiable science.
DiCaprio says is that he's pessimistic and laments the lack of action on climate change. While I appreciate his honesty, it's nothing new. Scientists of the past lament visible minorities being given equal rights and how it will lead to the end of white people (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
Scientists of the past also lament the rise of women's rights as destroying male dominance. In reality, women do achieve the highest levels of office throughout the world, but are still seen as second class citizens from a good deal of men in general.
Environmentalists of the past lament the massive population growth and how it will destroy humanity. In reality, various governments around the world are dealing with a population shortage and struggling to reverse the trend. Ironically enough, many people from the Middle East want to move away but most governments dealing with a population shortage don't want them because of their Islamic ideologies (with the German government being the exception).
All of the doom and gloom fear-mongering from past ideologies is complete nonsense. And the same will be true of the climate change movement.
And now we move to a behind the scenes look of the 2016 film The Revenant (starring DiCaprio). He talks about the exploitation of animals in general. Why does it occur? Because people believe that they're superior to animals with either religion of science justifying their ideologies/actions. Oddly enough, though DiCaprio lectures others on being a vegetarian, he eats meat on a regular basis. 
And yes, while many of the earlier colonizers wipe out entire species and destroy ecosystems, ecosystems can be rebuilt with similar animals. Or you can go the Jurassic Park route and genetically reengineer the extinct animals.  
DiCaprio talks to Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune who laments the use of traditional energy (coal, oil, and natural gas).
I love the fact that environmental groups are no longer talking about running out of these forms of energy anymore. Why not? Because we're not running out of them. We have an abundant supply, even with our insatiable chronic demand. All of the speculators, scientists, environmentalists, and media pundits of the past lament the shortage of traditional energy...only for reality to prove them wrong (see Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource).
And yes, the problems of fracking, the tar sands, and offshore drilling are major concerns. But what does Brune recommend? Solar, wind, and hydro. Sorry, but that's old forms of energy along with the usual suspects. And no multinational corporation is powering their businesses exclusively with renewable energy. Why not? Because it’s not efficient (see Part 4 of 9: Season 1, Part 4 - Ice & Brimstone).
While the Sierra Club constantly laments the problems with traditional energy, they have no efficient and sustainable solutions. That's not problem solving. That’s just a backseat driver.
DiCaprio takes a helicopter ride in Alberta to look at the tar sands. He inquires about clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is currently the norm. But in most North American jurisdictions, you have to replant all of the trees you cut down.   And it's not rocket science to replant trees. Currently, the process is cost and labor intensive. But most tree huggers are willing to break their back planting tree seedlings. Respect. Maybe a future entrepreneur will see this as a new business opportunity and change that.
DiCaprio then talks about his initial meeting with Al Gore and all the dire warnings he says. Queue the visual destruction of natural hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires. Sigh. Contrary to what you may believe, the man-made climate theory of a carbon apocalypse is not falsifiable. It’s just ideological junk science (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
While DiCaprio inspires millions of people to join the battle against climate change, it's all based on unfalsifiable ideological science. The reason why you don't think so is because scientists, environmentalists, and liberal media outlets are reinterpreting past and current climate through the framework of man-made climate change.
Today, man-made climate change is responsible for all extreme weather. Whether it's too hot or too cold, man-made climate change is the cause. This should be a red flag to you that this isn't falsifiable objective science. This is ideological junk science similar to eugenics, women's lower intelligence, marijuana prohibition, and cholesterol and fat. In the past, all of this is seen as objective science. Today, it's merely reinterpreted as being ideological (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose & Part III: Science).
DiCaprio then goes to the Canadian Arctic to talk about the decreasing ice volume. Yes, the ice is going to eventually melt, but that doesn't mean that ocean levels will necessarily rise (see Part 3 of 9: Season 1, Part 3 - The Surge). And while the Arctic ice is melting, on the opposite side the ice in Antarctica is increasing. 
Contrary to what you many believe, the melting of the Arctic doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means a new route for ships.
Generally speaking, environmentalists and climate change believers aren't happy people. They're not people you want to be around. Why not? Because they forever live a stressful life and worry about the lack of action on climate change. I'm sure that many of them drug themselves to sleep with pharmaceuticals. It's quite sad.
DiCaprio talks with Dr. Jason E. Box (a climate scientist). He says that:
If climate stays at this temperature that it's been in the last decade, Greenland is...is going away.
Ah yes, I love these predictions. It's the same as the Himalayan glacier prediction.  It's the same as past oil predictions (see Oil, the 4th Renewable Resource). Most of the predictions never come true because it's based on garbage computer models. And the computer models are based on unfalsifiable science. While all of these "experts" believe that their intelligence is so brilliant. Most can't see beyond their own bubbled wrapped ideologies. Just as liberals forecast an easy win for Hilary Clinton in the 2016 US election, reality comes crashing down on them. The same will be true of climate scientists and the climate change movement.
But yes, pieces of land that are close to sea level will eventually go under. That's a natural process. No one tells humans to build massive infrastructure at sea level. Only humans are dumb enough to think that it’s a good idea. It's common sense to forecast a few meters of sea level rise when building anything at sea level.
The director (Fisher Stevens) then shows various images of flooding in Florida. Sigh. As I mention in previous articles, the correct solution to flooding is proper drainage. If municipal, state, or federal governments choose not to, that’s due to incompetence and arrogance. It's not due to man-made climate change.
DiCaprio ask Mayor of Miami Beach Philip Levine why he thinks there's such opposition to climate change. Levine says it's because of politics and lobbying. And yes, that's a problem. But the largest reason why people don't accept man-made climate change is because it's not a falsifiable and objective theory. It's just ideological with people reinterpreting events to fit those ideologies.
Another significant problem is that many people don't trust scientists. Why not? Because (aside from physicists and chemists), scientists are constantly wrong in their long term predictions (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
Levine laments the lack of support at the state and federal level. Here's an idea. Run for political office at the state or federal level and stop bitching. Take some real action. You may not succeed, but you gave it your best shot as a genuine person. You can die happy knowing you did your best. If people don't listen, that's their problem, not yours.
And then we go to Dr. Michael E. Mann (a climate scientist) who says the 97% consensus of climate change scientists is equivalent to those who believe in gravity. This is excellent scientific manipulation. Mann is trying to show you how ridiculous it is for you to reject man-made climate change by bringing gravity into the mix.
In reality, climate science is not a falsifiable objective scientific discipline (similar to biology). In theory everything should work like clockwork. X happens, Y reaction occurs and Z is the new result. In reality, that's not the case for the Earth or your body. What works for you, doesn't necessarily work for the next person, even though the science says it should (see Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
Again, physics and chemistry are falsifiable objective disciplines. Every other scientific discipline tries to emulate physics and chemistry in order to appear as an objective discipline. In reality, it's just unfalsifiable ideological science at a mass level (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose & Part III: Science).
Mann talks about a massive disinformation campaign against man-made climate change.
I define disinformation as intentionally saying incorrect information. I define misinformation as unintentionally saying incorrect information. While most liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers claim that climate skepticism or denial is disinformation, most of it is accurate information with a bit of misinformation.
Why the confusion? Because interpretation is based on ideologies. Even though everyone is seeing X, they're seeing it through their ideological perception of it. And that perception enables a person to filter out whatever doesn’t fit with their core ideologies (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
To be fair to Mann, climate skeptics and deniers shouldn't be threatening his life or the life of his family. That's unethical and low. As a climate denier I implore other skeptics and deniers to take the higher ground and not make threats against someone you don't like. While you may feel better from making such threats, the other person doesn't. Nor do they know if it's real or fake. It's not rocket science to treat others as you would like to be treated in return.
Mann goes on to show the major funding of climate denial organizations. Sigh. While they do exist, most genuine people are not part of it. And no, I DO NOT receive any financial gain for my articles on climate change from Big Industry.
I like how Mann added think tanks...as if liberals don't have their own think tanks that spits out policies based on ideological science. As if there's no corporate influence funding liberal campaigns (I'll get into it in a future conspiracy theory series of articles).
Yes, the Koch Brothers reach is deep and exists at all levels of government. But if you're a liberal, an environmentalist, or a climate change believer...what are you going to do about the Koch Brothers influence? Are you just going to bitch about it? Or, are you going to do something about it? Personally, as a philosopher, a writer, and conspiracy theorist, I don't give a damn about the Koch Brothers. Generally speaking, conspiracy theorists don't like Big Anything.
Even though I advocate organic and natural health ideologies, I attack the natural health movement as well (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science and Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media). Why? Because I'm not loyal to Big Anything. Aside from being loyal to my future wife and kids (which I don't have yet...except in my dreams), as a philosopher, I'm loyal to objective falsifiable science. And no matter the cause, I'll call out ideological science on any issue.
Mann continues to lament the rise of climate denier politicians. Sigh. Forgive the sighs, but these climate change documentaries regurgitate the same junk...which I keep responding to in all of my previous climate change articles. I'm already on page 8 of this Word document and I'm only at the 26 minute mark. Sigh.
If climate scientists believe that climate change deniers should be booted out of office, they should organize and fund a campaign to do so. Of course, such a campaign would be useless. Why? Because the influence of scientists, like the influence of media outlets, is dwindling. Both groups are working hard to regain their influence on the general/global public. Hilarious.
As I mention in previous articles, many people are aware of the climate change views of their potential political candidate. Yet they still vote for climate skeptics and deniers. Why? Because man-made climate change is not a high priority for voters. Even with the help of Hollywood and the Years of Living Dangerously Debunked series, the public is still voting in climate skeptics and deniers. Why? Because economic policies and jobs are a higher priority than an incremental increase in temperatures.
No amount of environmental fear mongering is going to change that. No amount of reinterpreting past and current weather patterns is going to sway people who don't have jobs, money, or the finances to live a decent life.
Mann shows Big Energy funding politicians. Yawn. Big Pharma and Big Ag does the same. I don't hear any complaints about that from Mann. I feel that Mann is downplaying the fact that rich liberals also exist and fund causes. But if rich conservatives are having a larger effect, perhaps the climate change movement should meet with their rich liberal friends and retool their campaign. Maybe they should start with billionaire environmental activist Mark Steyer and his war against Trump. 
And no, it's not that Big Energy funding is preventing climate change bills from being passed in Congress. Voters are voting for conservatives instead of liberals. Climate change deniers aren't blocking the bills. Conservatives who have a majority in the past and present are blocking the bills. If you want to blame someone or something you can blame the Democrats for their horrible 2016 results where they lose the Senate, the House, state legislatures, and the White House.
Or, climate change believers can blame the people for voting conservatives into power. But blaming the people isn't what the director and producers of this documentary are selling. They're selling Big Energy as the villain. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
DiCaprio asks how such people are able to discredit climate change scientists. They're able to do it because most science today is ideological (aside from physics and chemistry), and because the peer-reviewed process is completely broken (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
Christ...I'm pushing 9 pages in Word and I'm only 27 minutes into this documentary. The climate scientists and believers are spouting so much diarrhea from their mouths that I can't help but call out their nonsense.
Mann says that such politicians and lobbyists are completely immoral for destroying the planet. Umm...we're all still here and relatively healthy. If we're not healthy, that's either because of corrupt governments or poor lifestyle choices. And while I agree that heavy lobbying is unethical, the sins of past scientists are worse
Who do you think gives rise to eugenics? The Nazis? Nope. That honor belongs to Western-European (WE) scientists. Who do you think creates the science that women are inferior to men? The Chinese? Nope. That honor belongs to WE scientists. Who do you think creates the science of marijuana prohibition? The North Koreans? Nope. That honor belongs to WE scientists. Who do you think advocates the use of toxic pesticides? The Russians? Nope. That honor belongs to WE scientists.
Contrary to what you may believe, WE scientists are part of the problem, not the solution (see Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media & Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry).
DiCaprio mentions that China surpasses the US as the # 1 polluter. He neglects to mention that everything made in the world usually comes from China. All of those products for Hollywood production companies most likely come from China. All of that expensive stuff in your house most likely comes from China. If you want to bitch about China as a polluter, that's fine. Just toss out almost everything you own prior to doing so. Keeping all of it while bitching about China's air pollution is disingenuous.
Contrary to what you may believe, the problem with China's air pollution is not carbon dioxide. It's toxic particulate matter (see Philosophy Reborn Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry).
DiCaprio then goes to India, the # 3 polluter. In the documentary people in India are burning cow crap for energy. That's how bad it is in India's rural areas. Until you address energy/electricity for the hundreds of millions of people who don’t have it, you can't address man-made climate change. I'm surprised that DiCaprio can even keep a straight face watching all of this.
To be fair, the conversation DiCaprio has with Surita Narain for the Center for Science and Environment is the most genuine talk throughout the documentary. Narain calls out US environmental NGOs for their garbage claims about India switching to solar and wind. She also calls out DiCaprio's garbage that more investment is needed. With the real problem being the massive consumption of electricity by people in developed nations. The director and producers could have cut this out. They didn't. Respect.
Narain then talks about flooding. I'm sorry, but like drought, flooding is a natural process. Blaming the failure of crops because of man-made climate change is disingenuous.
At least DiCaprio is kind enough to admit that his carbon footprint is bigger than most and question what he should be doing. Here's a suggestion. Stop doing movies and run for presidency of the US in 2020 under the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Bernie Sanders is too old to be his running mate. And Sanders' socialist views are not strong enough to win over the majority of Americans. The only likely running mate is Washington Governor Jay Inslee. Inslee is a strong advocate for climate change. Inslee has the experience while DiCaprio has the public image that most people love. It would be a great showdown against Trump in 2020.
If you want to make changes at the highest levels of office, you have to be willing to strive for it. And funding won't be a problem. DiCaprio's current net worth is around $245 million.  And with the support of the global environmental movement and Hollywood, funding definitely won't be a problem.
DiCaprio meets with President of Kiribati Anote Tong. It's odd that he uses such an unknown country to convince the global public about rising sea levels. Again, when you're close to sea level or living on an island, setting down roots there is not exactly the best decision. Common sense is usually the best solution for such moments. Unfortunately, the people of Kiribati choose to ignore common sense and build anyways. The results are quite predictable and not due to man-made climate change.
DiCaprio then talks with Dr. Jeremy Jackson (a marine ecologist) about the lack of healthy coral reefs. Sorry, but like all things in life, some things die while others adapt. And coral reefs are quite capable of adapting to changing conditions.  Again, nature isn't fragile. It has billions of years of evolution on its side. At the very least, it's quite capable of adapting to incremental changes in temperature.
But Jackson tries to say that once the coral goes, then the fish, then the loss of protein and such. Here's an idea. Don't overfish. Start planting crops. It's not rocket science.
Jackson says reefs are going to virtually disappear. If they do, it's not because of man-made climate change. It's because of toxic offshore oil rigs and the dumping of nuclear waste into the oceans in the past and present.
But most of the coral reef disappearance is environmental fear mongering. Yes, they die but they're also coming back.    More so, humans have the technology to give corals a helping hand.  The fear mongering is just a necessary tactic to sell man-made climate change to the global public.
DiCaprio then talks to Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network Lindsey Allen who laments deforestation (queue the dire background music). Again, most jurisdictions require tree replanting. Gone are the days where some company just cuts down a forest and calls it a day. That mainly occurs in the developing world (which corporations and governments exploit on a regular basis.
Why do logging companies replant (aside from the requirement)? Because there would be no forestry industry without replanting. It's not rocket science. Millions of trees are being planted every year across North America. Talk to a tree planter. They'll tell you their back-breaking stories out in the bush.
The environmental and climate change movement is using fear mongering to convince you that most of the trees in the world are gone. In reality, that's completely false.
DiCaprio then goes to Indonesia to look at the horrors of palm oil production. I cover this in the Years of Living Dangerously Debunked series. But just in case it's not apparent, while the Indonesian government clears prior forests for palm oil production, future generations can clear it to make a natural forest again. It's not rocket science. It just takes vision and the will to implement it.
The director then shows the usual loving images of animals and the displacement from the Indonesian palm oil industry. Emotional manipulation. The real problem isn't man-made climate change or palm oil production. It's the corrupt Indonesian government that willingly serves the palm oil industry. What do you expect? If the Indonesian people choose to live a servile life under an oppressive government...that's on them. Rich white people from WE countries lecturing the Indonesian government won’t make a difference.
If DiCaprio runs for the US presidency in 2020, he'll have the power to reign in US industries that profit from the destruction and exploitation of developing nations.
Kudos to the director and DiCaprio for showing that animal farming is the elephant in the room for the climate change movement. Dr. Gidon Eshel is correct when he says that animal agriculture is responsible for destroying natural rainforests and creating massive amounts of methane (which is worse than carbon dioxide).
What Eschel gets wrong is the suggestion that if you cut down the amount of beef in your diet, you're helping the environment. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Eschel is also incorrect in the suggestion that if you switch from beef to chicken, you're helping the environment. Again, that's garbage. While the space is less than cows, a higher amount of people eating chicken will easily extend the amount of land. And that's at the cruel chicken factory farming level. Never mind organic free-range chicken farming.
DiCaprio laments the lack of snow when shooting The Revenant near Calgary, Alberta. Sorry, but Calgary isn't northern Canada. It's on the same parallel line as Barrie, Ontario. Try Thunder Bay, Ontario or locations in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Working and living in the NWT for almost 3 years, I can accurately say that there's enough snow to go up to your waist.
Director of the Revenant Alejandro G. Inarritu says:
A few people will be able to see snow in the future.
Sigh. It annoys me when climate change believers lament the lack of snow. Stop cherry picking the dates and seasons. Try living in northern Canada and see for yourself. Contrary to what you may believe, we're not running out of snow.
DiCaprio says that everything we take for granted now will be different in the future. Yes, it will be different, but pretty close to the past (aside from nuclear war). If DiCaprio chooses to run for the US presidency in 2020 he'll be instrumental in shaping American and global culture.
DiCaprio meets with Tesla CEO Elon Musk who says that we're headed to some level of harm. Umm...what? Very smartly, he doesn't specify the harm. Hence I can't refute it. Well done Musk.
Musk gives his vision for energy/electricity in developing nations where only 100 gigafactories are needed to power the entire world. Though I'm skeptical of it, I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd love for all people in the developing world to have access to energy/electricity. If Musk says he can do it, I say let's see it.
And then we get to the major stumbling block in Musk's plan, a carbon tax. Enter Economics Professor Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University. He uses the example of taxes on cigarettes that lowers smoking rates. In reality, smoking is increasing.   Over 1 billion people are continuing to smoke cigarettes despite the taxes. 
Contrary to what you may believe, economics is not a falsifiable discipline. In theory it's just supply, demand, and the free market. In reality, it's more complex than that. Most economists don't foresee the massive 2008 housing bubble. In fact almost all of their predictions are just guesses based on past historical data or on their own ideologies (which are both usually incorrect). I recommend that you never take advice from an economist/economics professor. It's not that they're full of crap. They're trying to repackage that crap and sell it to you as gold nuggets.
The ideology of taxing everything that puts carbon into the atmosphere is completely nonsensical. And if you want to do it right, you'll have to tax people for living. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. In the eyes of climate change cult believers, taxing our very existence is necessary. Shame on you for breathing out that poisonous carbon dioxide.
DiCaprio then talks to former US Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry says that everything is different now that Obama and China's President Xi Jinping both agree to reduce carbon emissions. However, these are just surface actions. They're meant to pacify the environmental movement. Why? Because the movement is too big to ignore. Why? Because most climate change believers are atheist liberals who have no meaning in their lives. They're using climate change as a catalyst for meaning and purpose. Hence, they'll devote their life to the cause so they're part of something bigger than themselves (see Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
Kerry talks about the fight over natural resources and the nonsensical causation that it leads to wars. Sorry, but it doesn't (see the Years of Living Dangerously Debunked series).
DiCaprio talks to Johan Rockstrom (a climate scientist) and asks for a prediction of the future if we do nothing about man-made climate change. The director throws in numerous sound bites and visual images of nature gone wild. Emotional manipulation. Try not to fall for it. Hurricanes, droughts, and floods are all natural occurrences.
And no, man-made climate change doesn't cause any of this. At best, it can only influence it. However the rate of influence is unknown because the man-made climate change theory is not falsifiable. Hence, you have scientists saying that weather is now 25% of 50% worse because of man-made climate change. What? When scientists are throwing large percentages at you, it's usually a red flag that they're practicing ideological science instead of objective falsifiable science.
Rockstrom says that the Paris Agreement is the only window of change to save the Earth from a carbon/methane apocalypse. This is complete nonsense. Scientists are just pulling crap from their behind and calling it objective science and a solution. The reason why the 21st century is a sad time for science isn't because of the rise of Donald J. Trump. It's because of the rise of ideological science and the inability and/or refusal from media outlets and the people to recognize it (see Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science).
While the renewable energy solutions in Sweden is impressive, they don't necessarily apply to North America. The culture, politics, economics, and media for people in North America is completely different from Sweden. Just because X works in Sweden doesn't mean that it will work in the US. But yes, I'll admit that Sweden's push to end all use of traditional energy by 2045 is impressive. 
Unfortunately, (or fortunately) the Paris Agreement is NON-BINDING. It's just promises by various governments. With the US government potentially pulling out. 
DiCaprio listens while Obama uses fancy footwork to sell the Paris Agreement to him. And to be fair, he has a point. Currently, the efficiency rate for unfocused solar is 34.5%.  And for wind it’s 40%.  If new technological innovations can push that to the...70% level, only then will solar and wind energy be a no-brainer.
But until then, solar and wind aren't sustainable or efficient enough. Covering massive amount of land in solar panels or wind turbines is an inefficient use of land. Offshore wind farms are an exception. We might as well let the ocean pay rent via offshore wind turbines.
...the science...is indisputable.
Yah...no. That's the same thing that past scientists say about eugenics, women's inferior intelligence, marijuana prohibition, and cholesterol and fat. In the end, scientists in the 21st century are practicing ideological science at a similar rate in the past. Liberals, scientists, and environmentalists can't see this because they're forever wrapped up in their ideological bubble.
DiCaprio admires Obama's optimism while lamenting the supposed 4-6 meter of sea level rise. What? Will this be happening next year? Or in the next 100 years? Try to relax. I'm sure that DiCaprio is talking out of his ass for this particular claim.
Obama laments the pain of his kids not seeing glaciers anymore. I'm sorry but it's the same as kids today not riding on horses, or in carriages, or using a walkman with a cassette. Things change with each generation. And that's true of everything, including the planet.
DiCaprio talks to Dr. Piers Sellers (an astronaut/NASA scientist) who says that our atmosphere is so fragile. Against super toxic pollutant gases, yes. Against carbon dioxide and methane, no. Again, the planet has billions of years of evolution built into it. It's not going to crumble because of 100-200 years of increases in carbon dioxide and methane.
Sellers goes on to sell DiCaprio that the drought in the Middle East is causing wars there. Sigh. I go over this extensively in the Years of Living Dangerously Debunked series. Sellers goes on to say that:
The facts are crystal clear. The ice is melting. The Earth is warming. The sea level is rising. Those are facts.
Sorry, but the observations are crystal clear. The interpretations of those observations are ideological. This is why most climate models are completely wrong. In reality, as one area gets warmer, other areas get colder. In theory, ice melting means greater see level rise. In reality, it's more complex than. Don't believe me? Take a look at these articles:
For the past couple of decades, the oceans have been steadily rising. Each year, sea-level increases by about 3 millimeters, a constant and ominous creep responding to climate warming.
Scientists have been measuring this rise from satellites since 1993, using instruments called altimeters. But for an 18-month period that began in the middle of 2010, something surprising happened. Instead of rising, sea levels fell.
Every few months we check in on sea level and try to get some idea as to what's happening and why. For most of the altimeter record, it's been a fairly bland story. But some years have really thrown some curveballs," said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The one-and-a-half-year, 7-mm fall in sea levels was certainly a curveball. 
The Greenland ice sheet is melting. If you live in nearby Norway, how worried should you be about that sudden influx of water flooding your house? It turns out, not nearly as worried as you should be if you live in Chile. People tend to imagine that when an ice sheet melts, it adds water to all of the world's ocean uniformly, like a bathtub filling up. "That isn't even close," Harvard University geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica told attendees yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS...
In the end, Sellers says that there's hope if we stop burning traditional energy because everything will go back to the way it is prior to the industrial revolution. I'm sorry, but that's just speculation. There's no falsifiable science to support that claim. And what's more, if the cooling leads to 100 years of super cold weather, climate scientists themselves will become an extinct species as people hunt them for food.
Sellers is betting on the ideology that people will take action when they come out of the fog of confusion and realize the threat. In reality, there is no threat. Scientists just have too much time on their hands. Instead of drugging themselves to sleep every night worrying about man-made climate change, they should be helping developing nations to build water desalination plants and the infrastructure to support it. They should be investing time and energy in showing people how to grow almost any crop using heirloom organic seeds instead of pushing GMOs and pesticides on people.
Unfortunately, most scientists see themselves as intellectuals (the priest class) who advise the leaders on the right course of action. In the past, this advising leads to eugenics, women being inferior to men, marijuana prohibition, antibiotic resistance, and the destruction of fertile land via pesticides. Contrary to what you may believe, scientists are not part of the solution. They're part of the problem.
Finally, DiCaprio meets with Pope Francis. Forgive me, but the pope's thoughts on the environment have zero significance to me. Maybe if the pope and Vatican come clean about their pedophilia all in the name of the Christian god for the last thousand years...then I might take him seriously.
But for now, his authority and the Vatican's authority has zero credibility to me. If you're a catholic and still believe in the pope, that means that you're turning a blind eye to pedophilia because you want to secure your place in eternal heaven where you'll worship your god for eternity. Contrary to what you may believe, you can still be a catholic and not value anything that the pope says. Why? Because there are no real rules to religion. You make it up as you go.
The pope, like most politicians, governments, and media outlets, sway with the wind of public opinion. While they do their best to influence public opinion, most of these stakeholders are incompetent.
The documentary ends with DiCaprio giving a speech to the UN. To global government leaders he says:
You'll either be lauded by future generations or vilified by them.
Using history to shame politicians who want to be remembered by history for their actions is emotional manipulation. In reality, future generations will have a difficult time sorting out past ideological junk science from falsifiable objective science. But if they're lucky, they'll have clean, efficient, and sustainable nuclear fusion technology to live on the Earth and throughout the cosmos.
 Armstrong, Laura and Brankin, Emma. Leo's Big Misteak: Leonardo DiCaprio preaches about meat at a veggie talk but is later caught tucking into lamb tagine at a steakhouse. UK Sun. November 19, 2016.
 Worrall, Simon. Can Genetic Engineering Bring Back Extinct Animals? National Geographic. September 20, 2015.
 Goldhill, Olivia. Determined evolutionary biologists are working to bring extinct animals back to life. Quartz. September 27, 2016.
 Forest renewal. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Updated: October 7, 2015.
 Position Statements. Texas Forestry Association.
 Zolfagharifard, Ellie. Why sea ice in Antarctica has INCREASED while the Arctic melts: Nasa study reveals how climate change has affected the poles. Daily Mail. May 20, 2016.
 Bagla, Pallava. IPCC Finally Acknowledges Its "Himalayan Blunder." Scientific American. April 4, 2014.
 Stockton, Nick. The Billionaire on a Mission to Save the Planet From Trump. Wired. March 23, 2017.
 Leonardo DiCaprio Net Worth. Celebrity Net Worth.
 New study suggests coral reefs may be able to adapt to moderate climate change. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 29, 2013.
 Palmer, Jane. The corals that come back from the dead. BBC News. September 6, 2014.
 Aldred, Jessica. Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes 'spectacular' recovery. Guardian. April 22, 2009.
 Prigg, Mark. The reef that regenerated: Researchers find corals in Northern Australia healed themselves in just 12 years. Daily Mail. April 5, 2013.
 Sokol, Joshua. Heat-tolerant genes could help corals adapt to climate change. New Scientist. June 26, 2015.
 Why smoking rates aren't falling around the world. Economist. July 10, 2015.
 Kaplan, Jennifer. Why Are Some Americans Smoking More? Bloomberg. November 6, 2015.
 Tobacco. World Health Organization. Updated: June 2016.
 Farand, Chloe. Sweden pledges to cut all greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. UK Independent. February 3, 2017.
 Mooney, Chris and Dennis, Brady. Scott Pruitt calls for an 'exit' from the Paris accord, sharpening the Trump White House's climate rift. Washington Post. April 14, 2017.
 Da Silva, Wilson. Milestone in solar cell efficiency by UNSW engineers. UNSW Sydney. May 17, 2016.
 Wind Turbines and the Energy in Wind. FT Exploring.
 Ogburn, Stephanie Paige. A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop. Scientific American. August 20, 2013.
 Wade, Lizzie. How a melting ice sheet could actually lower sea level in some places. Science Magazine. February 13, 2016.