In the documentary above, one government estimate shows that if the power were to remain off in the United States due to its inability to replace and repair the damage done to the grid, 90 percent of the population could die off in one year. //

DaveM Romeg
9 hours ago edited
btw- over the years there have been various explanation.
At one time in the 70's and 80's
(when climate change "experts" predicted we were entering a new Ice Age ) the lack of detection of electron neutrinos from the Sun led to a hypothesis that there were some changes in the Solar Core fusion rate which could lead to ice ages. That one was discarded when it was discovered that electron neutrinos can decay into tau and muon neutrinos. Suddenly those missing neutrinos were no longer missing.
Before that it had been hypothesized that periodic oscillations in Earth's orbit could lead to both cold and warm periods.

The reality is that the science of climate is immature as a science. There's a huge amount of data but much of it is very low quality data.

In the world of science the sin qua non of any hypothesis is it's ability to make testable conclusions. The fact that revery single hypothesis of climate change has failed that fundamental test should have told the scientific community that the underlying theories about climate are just plain wrong. More importantly- a re-assessment should have told them that that they are making a classical mistake- instead of being led to the conclusion by the data they are starting with the conclusion and working backwards. That leads to the cherry-picking of data.

Were I a climate scientist (I'm not nor do I play one on TV) I would wonder why these hypothesis are failing. After all they are based on a sound understanding of the physics involved. There are obviously factors influencing climate that are critically important but very poorly understood. What are those factors? I haven't a clue. But then -if we knew all the answers there wouldn't be much point in studying it would there?

A famous case was a study of tree rings which proved climate change. The problem was the ring data was all over the place and the researcher threw out in excess of 90+ percent of the tree ring data. He then tried to use the remaining few percent of data to prove a conclusion. The proper scientific conclusion was that tree ring data he was using was not a valid predictor of climate. A real scientist would have seen a new line of enquiry open. Why was there such variation in a group of trees that shared the same climate and overall environmental conditions? But that would have required him to admit he didn't have a clue what was happening.