Warmist epic ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ bombs at the box office

Earns just $45,000.00 nationwide on opening weekend – film cost $1.5 million to make

GLB earned forty five thousand dollars nationwide, wow. Maybe it had to do with the situation described in this review by Alana Goodman from a showing in Washington D.C. area:

Only a handful of people showed up to a screening of Greedy Lying BastardsCraig Rosebraugh’s documentary that aims to expose the global warming denialist-industrial complex—at an Alexandria, Va., theater on Saturday. And none of them seemed to notice one of the documentary’s star villains seated in the audience.

Yep, the numbers are in, and it’s a bomb. It never even had Box Office Mojo to start with:

Greedy_lying_bastards_box_office

The screen above was captured in two parts from Box Office Mojo, which tracks weekend box office ratings.

Note the gross receipts circled in red. The average Theater take was $900, and since the theaters earn their majority of profit on concessions, and the green types that attended probably don’t eat that evil butter flavored popcorn or drink Coke because it reminds them of the Koch Brothers, I’m guessing that a number of those 50 theaters won’t be showing the movie next weekend.

I wonder if eco-activist producer Daryl Hannah will ask for her funding back?

UPDATE: I agree with this comment from MattS, so I’ve elevated it to the post body.

MattS says:

Comparing GLB to blockbuster entertainment films doesn’t seem fair some how. How does it compare to other documentaries.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?view=main&sort=opengross&order=DESC&pagenum=2&id=documentary.htm

looking at documentaries for 1982-Present, GLB comes in at 128th for opening weekend take. Not a stellar opening even in it’s own genre.

About these ads

176 thoughts on “Warmist epic ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ bombs at the box office

  1. So another fine own goal, the energy has gone out of the ‘Cause” even their lies are tired desperate mumbling.

  2. “The $1.5 million film is an investigation of the influence the fossil fuel industry has had on the political process and efforts to combat climate change.”

    I can see the problem: they have the premise backwards. It should have been done this way:

    “The $10,000 film is an investigation of the influence the political process has had on climate change and efforts to combat the fossil fuel industry.”

  3. And how many people pay to read the utter tripe you spew? Oh, maybe the Hartland Institute is one of them.

    REPLY: LOL^2! WUWT is a FREE TO READ blog. Did you pay anything to read here?

    The stupid, it burns. – Anthony

  4. The more they do, the more they are confronted by minor public support. It must be disheartening. Which is the beginning of people like Jerry Rubin going from anti-everything activists to mainstream pimps.

    Great idea.

  5. jcales says:
    March 12, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    And how many people pay to read the utter tripe you spew? Oh, maybe the Hartland Institute is one of them.

    REPLY: LOL^2! WUWT is a FREE TO READ blog. Did you pay anything to read here?

    The stupid, it burns. – Anthony
    ======================================================
    Funny !!
    FIrst I saw that this was snipped and then it came back !!
    Glad you showed what it was Anthony !!

    [Reply: I snipped it. jcales can do his spewing elsewhere. This is a class site, and above his gratuitous insults. — mod.]

    [Reply2: Anthony re-posted it. Now everyone can see ‘jcales’ lack of class.
    mod.]

  6. Looks good on them. Too bad it wasn’t 10 million dollars to make it.
    Nobody cares about their cause anymore and that’s got to hurt big time. But we all will be the winners for it.

  7. I agree that the problem is we can’t stop this being pushed in schools and shown on the Discovery Channel, which was probably the purpose of it anyway rather than to make money.

  8. jcales says:
    March 12, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    And how many people pay to read the utter tripe you spew? Oh, maybe the Hartland Institute is one of them.

    [Reply: I snipped it. jcales can do his spewing elsewhere. This is a class site, and above his gratuitous insults. — mod.]
    =============================================
    Would it be ironic if that were post # 1,000,000??

  9. I just wish the apathy the public are showing would turn to anger….for the record just in case a few warmers are paying a visit.
    1) In order for your theory to be correct there has to be a warming of the Tropical Troposphere….none found by weather balloons over 20 years and none found by the Aqua satellite.
    2) CO2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic and not linear…therefore as you stack it up you get a diminishing return…so it cannot overheat the planet. For a doubling of todays levels the warming would be around 1C and a further doubling even less and another doubling less again and so on.
    3) The computer models are biased towards positive feedback with negatives virtually ignored.
    Therefore it is litte wonder CAGW has not materialised.

  10. And most of the people going to see it probably saw it advertised here first at WUWT! Would love to see the real thing “Global Lying B****” showing the alarmists’ decline to abandonment. Starring Al ´”Almighty God” Gore and Michael “Even mightier” Mann. The first scene would be fire burning at the North Pole ……..

  11. “And how many people pay to read the utter tripe you spew? Oh, maybe the Hartland Institute is one of them.”

    Yup, but only on every seventh day.

  12. Maybe it would have done better if it weren’t for all the cold weather & snow around the country, keeping people at home.

  13. Matthew W says:
    March 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Ahhh, but to the rescue will be public schools busing children in to indoctrinate them.
    ____________________________________________________________________-
    No no no. They release a DVD which the schools will pay big bucks for and indoctrinate the little ones in class.
    /sarc

  14. OT, but I see WUWT’s ENSO meter is approaching exact neutral. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but that could translate to the end of drought in US Midwest.

  15. Based on the title I thought this film would be about Al Gore and the selling of Current TV to Big Oil.

  16. Blog Stats
    142,298,986 views

    Twitter
    Join 16,357 other followers

    When does the count count? Funny how there seems to be a deflecting transference of their own self image as in “Greedy Lying Bastards” temperament onto others.

  17. Re Jcales…..Bwahahahahajahjahahahjahahhahahahajhahjahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The news about the film is the most heartening thing Ive read in ages. I was getting fed up with his site, but thanks for this news. Really boosted my mood.

    Then that nads comment is the cherry on top. You didnt make it up did you.?Just sooo good its hard to believe an idiot could be so frank with its idiocy.

  18. Re schools: In the UK a court ruled that any school showing Al Gores efort would also haveto acknowledge anddeclare 45 pages of factual innacuracies.

    The USA is a lawyer-operated society (a shysterland if not actually sheisland) …if the above was accomplished in theUK, then surely you lot can do better with those legalistic resources than just sit back and moan about the movie going to schools ?

  19. I wonder how many of those ticket buying customers were actually skeptics/luke-warmers ready to take notes? ;->

  20. The watermelons just can’t seem to comprehend the fact that the majority of the public knows them for what they are and no longer fall for their agitprop.

  21. Davidxn had the seed of a good idea. What if reasonable people chipped in and funded a movie about once respected and now turned corrupt researchers and scientists in cahoots with agenda driven political hacks who fomented a Man Made Global Warming scheme to defraud the world of billions. It could be a hit.

  22. I doubt many even know this movie exists in the first place. Ticket sales have little to do with quality anyway. Not that I’m defend the movie, but I doubt anyone is asking for their money back.

    Just saying…

  23. Ok, so jcales is obviously not too bright. But I think you guys are misreading his intent. Unless he’s literally retarded which I doubt, he understands that WUWT is FREE. His point I believe, murky and illogical though it is, is that at least some people paid to see that risible movie whereas NOBODY pays to read WUWT.

    (Because it’s you know, free. So why should they pay? So yes, stupid x 3, but not utterly without some sort of thought process.)

  24. With an intellect like Daryl Hannah’s behind this epic , how can it miss? By the way, who the hell is Daryl Hannah and why can’t she spell? Is Daryl a male, a female, or a neuter?

  25. ….movie houses are where we get yummy demonic salted popcorn and evil death drink soda. That’s according to Mika Brzezinski MSNBC “Industry groups like theater owners serve popcorn that is so full of salt it will kill you and these big drinks that you sit for two hours and drink and become sick…”

    Kind of looks like the warmistas got her message…stayed home…ate sprouts and drank filtered water.

  26. Maybe jcales was emotionally distraught when he made the post. It’s possible that he invested in the production of the tripe

  27. You have to pay to read here? I guess that explains where all my Big Oil checks are going, clearly my WUWT reading/posting privileges are being deducted from my checks before I get them. Evidently the sums even out, because I never get a bill from Anthony, so it’s all good!

    I’ve never even heard of this movie, by the way.

  28. “probably don’t eat that evil butter flavored popcorn or drink Coke because it reminds them of the Koch Brothers”

    I saw an ad on TV a few days ago where Coke was hyping their support of WWF to the tune of $5 million for polar bear something or other.
    Coke has lost me as a customer.

  29. “Daryl Hannah Boards ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ Documentary as Executive Producer”

    I thought for sure it you would say it was funded by the NSF. I wonder, if someone followed the “money” if part of it didn’t come from the NSF.

  30. The best part is knowing that useful idiot Darryl Hannah lost her shirt. Good thing she believes in global warming because she may get a little cold protesting without her shirt after this flop.

  31. I think there could be a successful TV series based on the climate skeptic / alarmist theme. Similar to The Big Bang Theory, but without the annoying cloitus jokes.
    Of course it would have to present the science accurately as TBBT seems to try to do.

  32. Is the correct word “irony”, or is it “hypocrisy”?

    The large majority of people debating against CAGW theory and practices, are not receiving any funding for their actions in this issue, are certainly not liars and are unlikely to be “bastards”, either literally or figuratively speaking.

    So it could be logically argued that the title and premise of the film are themselves a lie!
    Also insulting. (Seems to be a common enough technique of the ‘warmist’ group).

    Now the hypocracy – The title of the film actually neatly and truthfully describes the producers of the film, AND also of the CAGW proponents, wouldn’t you agree?

  33. No wonder the alarmists are in full panic and screaming louder. I can hear them now: “The scare tactics worked once. Why isn’t it working now? We’ve got to scream LOUDER. The people AREN’T GETTING THE MESSAGE ANYMORE!!! Quick! Think of something even scarier than before. Quick. QUICK!”

    I love this so much. So close and yet so far. Bliss. I’m glad this demise is happening in the lifetimes of Hansen, Gore, the Team at UEA, etc., etc. They’ve got to be feeling pretty sick by now. They’ll certainly be looking over their shoulders.

  34. Bringing MattS comment into the post is a wonderful example of the open, challenging, adapting to better perspectives and facts that characterizes the vast majority of the unwashed skeptics. And which self evidently does not for the vast majority of the climate science community, apart from a few prominent and noteworthy exceptions.
    Image Mann or Cook importing a good critical comment into one of their rants.
    Bravo, Anthony.

  35. That’s too bad. I’m sure I’ll find a way to deal with the sadness somehow.

    I know! Maybe it’ll become a cult classic midnight movie.

    Michael Rennie was ill the day the earth stood still
    But he told us where we stand
    And Flash Gordon was there in silver underwear
    Claude Raines was the invisible man
    Then something went wrong for Fay Wray and King Kong
    They got caught in a celluloid jam
    Then at a deadly pace it came from outer space
    And this is how the message ran…

  36. I think I’ll wait for this film to show up on Netflix before I watch it.

    That way I can fast-forward through any parts I feel are a waste of time.

  37. If Daryl Hannah wants to people to go to her movies she should star in them and put in one of her absolutely unique and unforgettable acting performances. She was great in 10.

  38. Anthony: Thanks! Say, didn’t the Horns, the stinger tail, and the sulfur smell give him away?

    Anthony: WHO was the arch villain? I’m missing that!

    REPLY: Myron Ebell, of CEI – Anthony

  39. jcales says:
    March 12, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    And how many people pay to read the utter tripe you spew?
    —————————–

    We all read for free but let me guess – some guy in Lagos sold you a subscription to WUWT over the internet via Western Union?

    LOL

  40. I saw Rosebraugh’s documentary on its opening day, and there were only three other people there

  41. Of the $45,000, almost $30,000 was from NASA/GISS and NOAA employees who were required to see the movie and produce ticket stubs as proof of attendance the following Monday or risk suspension. The requirement to see the movie was reportedly mandated by Hansen with heavy support from Trenberth.

    Of course I just made that up now, but now you can say that you saw a comment on WUWT to that effect…

  42. garymount: funny you should mention the very underrated Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The first film was about con men; the second was made to prop up con Mann.

  43. It’s not over until the special prosecutor is appointed to find out how all that government pogey was misspent by the alarmist research complex. So don’t pop the champagne corks just yet.

  44. Highflight…I dont go to movies. I am here having eaten one lovely salty saurkraut noodles with extra saltiness and monosodium glutamate, one chicken and onion salty flavour extra salty noodles with monosodium glutamate and am weighing up what to have for a third salty monosodium glutamate noodles chaser.

    I also add demerara sugar to Cola occasionally as I dont think its sugary enough.

    I am in myfifties with nominal blood pressure, no heart problems and a 32 inch waistline.

    I tried that “healthy” eating in my youth, it made me ill.

  45. As for the title..shows who was a dumb bar steward for missing the much more apt to his theme (especially given that poster) “Dirty, Lying Bastards”.

  46. CAGW was a wonderful scare, but like bird flu, terrorists, MMR vaccines and Y2K it has done its dash. Like the famous Monty Python it is dead, deceased, no more.

    Not good times to be a warmist. Hurrah!

  47. Re Sean…………Id prefer seeing Darryl Hannah without her shirt back in the day.

    I guess she must be Prissed off now.

  48. arthur4563 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 5:10 pm
    With an intellect like Daryl Hannah’s behind this epic , how can it miss? By the way, who the hell is Daryl Hannah and why can’t she spell? Is Daryl a male, a female, or a neuter?

    Are you being facetious? She is a halfway decent actress, but has gotten so political of late I can’t separate her from the character enough to get a suspension of disbelief going well enough to enjoy the show. I wish actors would stop jumping on all these bandwagons so publicly, as they ruin their ability to get lost in the role. A decent biography of her is available at IMDB.com if you are interested. She went full vegan and environmentalist in the 90’s and is part of Colorado’s Californication* problem. (*Californians moving in and bring their leftist tripe with them.)

  49. The only greedy lying bastards I see here are the @#$%&*!!heads that made this movie, and the @#$%&*!!heads who threatened the jobs of people at NASA and NOAA. That’s extortion, by the way, and those who were forced to watch that piece of @#$%&*!! should file criminal complaints.

  50. The Director of the Climate Institute, Mike MacCracken is getting tiring on Yahoo:

    “My reference was to average sea level rise around the world, and it has clearly risen at an increasing pace. For example, see http://imbie.org/about-the-project/sea-level-rise/ for the global average. A focus on the more recent period and the global spatial distribution, which is available since satellite observations started, is at http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/

    Mike”

    Gone from Aviso are of course the Envisat early years of measurements that needed no corrective orbital calculations… Celebrity Mike is again averaging instead of discussing the strange distribution of sea level supposed rises. That hack is getting really annoying and his presence is simply a thorn in a discussion group, notwithstanding the eye and ears of Tickell.
    His sudden appearence or re-appearence there is no coincidence: he is monitoring for the AR5 crowd. Open your eyes people on yahoo!

  51. pokerguy says (March 12, 2013 at 5:09 pm): “His point I believe, murky and illogical though it is, is that at least some people paid to see that risible movie whereas NOBODY pays to read WUWT.”

    We invest our time reading WUWT, and time is money, right? :-)

  52. Two points:
    1) I pay to read the articles and the comments on this site and am quite pleased to do so.
    2) Daryl Hannah now knows exactly how those of us who object to the wasting of our money on bogus research feel.

  53. Aussie Luke of Australiastan says:
    March 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    “If Daryl Hannah . . . She was great in 10.

    I saw the one with Bo Derek.

  54. Most films like this are not aiming for or respecting stunning box office success, and such a lack of success does NOT e indicate a failure of the message or the meaning. What is typical of Republicans and small minded people is they judge things only in terms of money, which is basically the entire problem the film is trying to expose!

    Focusing on earning gobs of money at the expense of the environment is the main problem with our society and many societies, as well as the lack of freedom imposed by dictatorships and giant corporations run by a few billionaires and millionaires. Most of us are wage slaves, albeit with better working conditions than most slaves–currently and in the old days–but we are still slaves to the capitalist system which truly benefits only a very few– those who keep gaming the system with corruption and influence at the highest levels to benefit only themselves.

    The purpose of humanity should be furthering the interests and health and ideals of all humanity, not just the very few who are grabbing it for themselves– and destroying everything for everyone along the way, blindly and greedily and wantonly.

    And we should all absolutely be working to eliminate poverty, hunger and environmental destruction and slavery and other social ills instead of working for rich people to enrich only them. Why would you, the 99 percent, support such an unfair system when you receive so little from it?? When you are chained to it?

    For example, the egregious lack of regard for women’s health by corporations in America. In all other industrialized nations, women get paid maternity leave, sometimes up to a year or 2. Where is this common sense benefit in America, the wonderful and supposedly great? It is obviously being taken up as profits for the rich instead of benefiting women who bear the burden of childbirth.

    1 of the worst things going on is the gigantic epic failure of the oceans due to human pollution. Within 50 years we face a mass extinction event that will totally change the course of evolution itself and of course history. Mass starvation will follow because many societies are dependent on the chain of life that will be destroyed in our oceans. And that will be only the first, most obvious result. For more scientific data on this just google “shocking oceans report.”

    Wake up people, look at a wider vision of life instead of gloating that a documentary that makes absolute sense doesn’t hurt as much as Harry Potter, the latest Pixar film or a Hugh Grant comedy.

    I am expecting brainless attacks on this comment that are typical of the audience here . Be aware that insipid accusations of “he is a socialist,” and ridiculing the concept that the oceans’ life systems upon which we are dependent are about to collapse, just reveal your ignorance of science and lack of research on social systems and their

  55. Box Office Mojo lists the number of screens showing the movie as well – 50 listed here. Dividing the take by nine bucks (about usual) gives 5000 people and dividing by the 50 screens comes out at 100 people per screen. I think the weekend is three-night period so 33 people per showing. Not very good considering the publicity it got.

  56. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm
    ——————–
    Tshane my friend, you ought to open your eyes.

    Did you imagine we’re all Republicans here? Richard Courtney is an articulate, razor sharp AGW skeptic who posts here regularly, nice guy too, happens he’s a socialist and makes no bones about it, just like several others. Lots of people here, myself included incidentally, have plenty of concern for the environment. Part of what irritates me so much about the AGW hoopla is that it’s a waste of time, money, and attention that could actually be put to good purpose to benefit the environment.

    So, put down your sword, stay awhile. You might learn something. Heck, you might teach me something, which after all is the only valid reason for all the rest of you to be posting in the first place – for my benefit, am I right? No? Just kidding. It’s late.

    However, don’t expect a whole lot of respect. For this film or… much of anything else, actually. What respect you see around here is hard earned.

    Regards

  57. Just one final salient question:

    Why would anyone support an industry that kills thousands of people each year, whose products kill millions of people over time, whose products and the extraction of which are destroying our world ecosystem and creating dependence on other nations who are hostile to us? HM

    I applaud anyone who can give me an honest answer. Other than the bankrupt: “We have been doing it for a long time and it should continue because we have been doing it for a long time– and it makes a very few people very very rich .”

    In an Earth filled with a very small number of people, the amount of pollution could possibly be reabsorbed by the planet. Not with 6,000,000,000 people and growing everyday. This is what fossil fuel supporters cannot widen their minds to see and grasp.

    Anyone who reads a fair amount of science and sociology should be able to see this easily. And do research on counter arguments.

  58. Tshane3000 says:

    “Most films like this are not aiming for or respecting stunning box office success, and such a lack of success does NOT indicate a failure of the message or the meaning.”

    • • •

    Such a ‘lack of success’ DOES, in fact, indicate failure. The film was intended to make money. But it bombed. A return of $45K on an investment of $1.5 million = total failure.

    You really should get out of your mom’s basement once in a while. Practical economics isn’t Socialism’s strong point; every Socialist needs to remember that their primary job is figuring out how to steal the earnings of the productive members of society.

    Finally, I note your hypocrisy in demonizing the fossil fuel industry. [I will retract that accusation if you name the “thousands” of people “killed” by them.] The plain truth of the matter is that lifespans and human health have increased enormously due directly to fossil fuel use. And you are certainly a fossil fuel consumer.

    We know who the thumbsuckers are here. Lookin’ at you, Tshane. If you are sincere in your post above, you will, of course, be one of the first to volunteer for self-extinction. Set an example for the rest of us, ‘K? Thx bye.

  59. D.B. Stealey says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Tshane3000 says:
    ———————-
    Oh, yup. Tshane, forgot to mention. Come in swinging like that, somebody’s bound to hit back. Usually me in fact, more often than not. :)

    Nite folks.

  60. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    [snip. You cannot label others ‘denialists’ here. — mod.]
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Could you pass a polygraph test with just 3 questions on climate?

    This assumes you are actually a scientifically informed person (earned right of logical understanding) ……..

    This site does not allow for anonymous server connections. Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,, Step up!

    Can you?

  61. Tshane3000.
    You inadvertently stumbled across the reasons for the failure of the Global Warming cause, despite the billions of dollars spent on promoting it.
    By immediately associating CAGW skeptics with ‘Republicans’ you revealed two things simultaneously; firstly you assumed that the motivation for questioning CAGW is political and by implication that your Faith in CAGW is political. In the latter you are correct, in the former very, very wrong.
    What gives us skeptics the ‘high ground’ is that we are not a homogenous group who occupy one slice of the political spectrum…that’s yourselves you’re talking about.
    The engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, geologists etc etc who come onto WUWT on a daily basis and demolish and debunk Warmist Scaremongers are a diverse group of free thinkers…wherein lies their strength.
    The terrible irony is that many of us ‘skeptics’ are deeply concerned about matters ecological, but given that the ‘Green’ movement has yoked its wagon to the millenarian doomsday cult of CO2 Warming we cannot rightly support it in general terms.
    If you really care about ‘the planet’ abandon this absurd belief and you will find that millions of us alienated ‘skeptics’ will once again be able to address real, actual ecological issues.

  62. Cool, I got a comment elevated to the main post!

    P.S. Anthony needs to put a running comment total under the view in the blog stats section in the right margin panel.

  63. Rob Potter says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Box Office Mojo lists the number of screens showing the movie as well – 50 listed here. Dividing the take by nine bucks (about usual) gives 5000 people and dividing by the 50 screens comes out at 100 people per screen. I think the weekend is three-night period so 33 people per showing. Not very good considering the publicity it got.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    GLB has a cast and crew totaling 62. I am willing to bet that they all went to see it on the big screen so that leaves just 4938. And those were probably all “True Believers” to begin with.

  64. So the upshot is that if any fifty of us showed up at a showing dressed as hockey sticks or lumps of coal we’d double the theater’s take for the night…

  65. Also, GLB opened up in 50 theatres for that 128th place performance. 50 opening theatres puts it at #33 on the list ranked by number of theatres it opened in.

  66. @Tshane3000
    Mr. McShane, as a professional comedian, the American people will grant you enormous liberty to say outrageous things to make people laugh. Some audiences are harder than others; this one is not particularly Victorian. But I took the trouble to visit your web site, and I wish to advise you that you need to call a plumber. You have a sewage problem.

  67. jacles wins the award for one of the dumbest posts in WUWT’s history. LOL. Talk about placing your argument in the wrong basket.

  68. @ Tshane3000

    Seems to me you should write a post explaining what needs to be done and how it will work. Specifics are required. If you have details on the political, economic, societal setup you aspire to – spell it out.

    [I’ve not seen a Hugh Grant comedy, a Pixar film, nor know anything about Harry Potter. Maybe that’s because I spend my spare time volunteering for things that I think might help the environment. Unlike you, I guess.]

  69. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    Just one final salient question:

    A minor point of grammer.
    Salient = Most noticeable or important

    You cannot have more than one salient question…

  70. I wonder if this sort of propaganda film qualifies for a government subsidy, I guess your Government just might be eager to contribute, after all its only a drop in the bucket with all the trillions that have been wasted on climatology so far.

    And failure at the box office doesn’t stop climatmystryologists from forming back slapping circles and creating PRESTIGIOUS titles and awards – cue Bill Mc Kibben and a fine cast of ” you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, after all some might get Nobel Peace Prizes even if they fail the elementary truth or self deception test.

  71. Tshane3000 says (March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm): “In an Earth filled with a very small number of people, the amount of pollution could possibly be reabsorbed by the planet. Not with 6,000,000,000 people and growing everyday.”

    Seven billion, isn’t it? Were we supposed to die out at six? Oops.

  72. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    Just one final salient question:
    —————————————————-
    Aaaaah, that tired old “when did you stop beating your wife question”, only asked when one can’t think of a salient question.

    …. but please go on, O Wise One. We can solve the world’s problems by pretending to remove CO2 from the atmosphere with wind turbines, while paying your puppeteers a commission for mandating them ??

    How’s that going, by the way ??

  73. LOL!! Well, it looks like the greedy lying bastards that made this POS are not going to make a dime on the film.

    I love to see a poetic justice in action.

  74. Shame asked: “Why would you, the 99 percent, support such an unfair system when you receive so little from it?”
    Answer: Because I’m not hung up on money like you are. Whether someone has billion$, million$, thousand$ or just hundred$ makes no difference to me – as long as they are satisfied with their lot in life. (Actually the more one has, the more headache there is to manage it.) Diversity is great in many areas of life – including wealth status – so celebrate it!

  75. @D. B. Stealey

    As far as practical economics goes, I’ve refuted you grand and uninformed assertion about socialists not being skilled in economics. I made clearly salient points in my last comment–ones you clearly were not capable of coming up with yourself. Even with your vast intellect, able to critique mine as though I were a bug under your all seeing scientific and analytical eyes.

    Furthermore, an opening weekend for a film has little to do with the overall economics of how much money it makes. Stating a film is a failure based on 1 weekend of box office receipts is itself a failure to grasp the economics of the situation.

    Again, looking at small moments– cherry picking–while ignoring the big picture, while claiming this small slice is the only important piece, is a trait of typical conservatives that reveals ignorance. If not ignorance, then a willful and evil intention to dupe others.

    The big picture is that the film may or may not make millions and millions in DVD, residuals, and the likes of HBO, Current TV (or whatever its replacement may be.)

    To assert a film is a failure before it has run years and years simply (yes, I mean simply in the literal sense: it was a simplistic supposition) ignores the big picture of the economics of the film industry. Many, many films make huge amounts more money in DVD and cable distribution then they ever made in their first run. Clearly you have failed to do this type of research and failed to consider these points . Why?

    Could it be you want to dupe the audience into believing your points by ignoring realities that could be researched? Weak ploy. Easily countered. Or could it be ignorance? There really aren’t any other answers.

    Your suppositions and assertions…***eviscerated****.

    Given the failings of your analyses, is there *any* reason whatsoever to trust or believe in the value of your comments anymore???

    John Kerry recently told German students that in America we have the right to be stupid. Any idiot has a right to an opinion. Go forth and spew yours.

  76. “Tshane3000 says:

    March 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    And we should all absolutely be working to eliminate poverty, hunger and environmental destruction and slavery and other social ills instead of working for rich people to enrich only them.”

    Me thinks you’ve not seen poverty, hungry people and real environmental damage. BTW, if you think 6 billion, going on 7, is too many people for this rock then please be the first to set an example and step off it.

  77. Thanks to Darryl Hannah for making such an outstanding documentary. Word of mouth will propel its box office receipts, as more people awaken to the horror of corporate distortion of the public dialogue.

  78. Moderator:

    You deleted my note calling others denialists. In fairness, please also delete all comments calling AGW supporters warmists or alarmists. I agree– ad hominem attacks have no place in a scientific discussion.

    If you want to admit that this is NOT a discussion about science–merely a forum by and for true believers supporting an antiscience agenda– also known as a religion– then go ahead and keep the alarmist and warmist ad hominem attacks. Apparently this is a way of protecting your flock from the mean greenies.

    But if you do, your agenda is clear. No more can you pretend that this is any kind of reasonable discussion.

    [Reply: Read the site Policy page to understand which comments will be snipped. ~mod]

  79. Tshane3000 – you are most welcome here, no poisionous snipes just common sense science. I too, some 6 years ago, thought the same as you, that fossil fuels were killers and CO2 was the main warming driver. Believe me I had no idea how much I didn’t know. Here at WUWT and other so called “skeptic” sites you will get real unadulterated facts and figures which can be debated by the readers openly. I agree that the poor and hungry in this world deserve better from our governments, and land usage for biofuels (for example) is not the way to do it. Just for the record I live in Finland and have no political motives at all, i just read books and many blog sites to try and get the big climate picture.

  80. nwblacksmith says: March 12, 2013 at 10:16 pm
    . . . A minor point of grammer. . . .

    I think she can get by with ‘salient’ more easily than you can with ‘grammer.’
    Muphry’s Law, doncha’ know. ;-)

    I, too, thought she was great in ’10.’
    ‘Prissed off, losing her shirt, Tshane3000, – what a great thread!

  81. Even the earnings of $45,000 seem to be more than this film deserves by the look of it. I hope that the disaster teaches them a lesson about public gullibility’s limits.

  82. Heh-Heh, looks like the “I`m somebody and I know better than you” crowd once again gets kicked in the gonostrils.

  83. @ D. B. Stealey
    The value of your commentary is so low I will not be responding anymore after this.

    The following article doesn’t even mention all the people killed directly as a result of fossil fuel accidents in production and extraction. The Gulf oil spill blowout killed 11. A recent coal mine catastrophe in PA killed many more. This industry is rife with corruption and lack of regulation and as a result, between 10s and 100s die every year. Fossil fuel extraction is consistently rated as one of the most dangerous occupations. Ever.

    How many mine collapses and explosions have happened since coal mining begin? The number of deaths in the US in the past century is estimated at more than 100,000 according to Wikipedia. While the number of deaths from coal mining in the US has declined to an average of 30 a year, the number of deaths in 2004 in China was over 6000.

    The federal regulatory agency responsible for for mining states that 4000 cases a year of black lung reduce the lives of miners in the US:

    http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM

    Furthermore the following article reveals over 13,200 a year in the US alone die from fine particulate matter due to coal burning. You ought to do some research before you refute claims. It took literally 1 minute to find the article below:

    Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

    Please stop wasting everyone’s time here with futile, fact-free posts. It’s really not worth your time arguing with me. Listen and learn.

    And if anyone really thinks coal mining is such a great thing, and the federal government should be smaller, and the companies that do it are such great humanitarian industrialists pushing to improve humanity one mine at a time, read this:

    How many mine safety deaths does it take to create safety regulations?

    http://mobile.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/mine_disaster_west_virginia_no_new_safety_regulations_after_massey_s_upper.html

  84. Mathew W,
    “Would it be ironic if that were post # 1,000,000??”

    And he wins the $1,000,000 prize for being the millionth poster. That WOULD be ironic.

  85. Watch out for the next Climate Warmista film “A Fierce Green Fire : The Battle for a Living Planet” by director Mark Kitchell. Interview with him in March/April ‘Sierra’ magazine. Opens in N.CA this Friday.

  86. One of the new safety features was hilltop removal, open pit mining. The rational being if there’s no thing above the miner’s head, then he’s less apt to get quished with it falling on him.

    But of course government and protesters insist through their actions, that a miner’s job isn’t dangerous enough to impliment those kind of safety features.

  87. Mike Roddy says:
    March 12, 2013 at 11:28 pm
    “Thanks to Darryl Hannah for making such an outstanding documentary. Word of mouth will propel its box office receipts, as more people awaken to the horror of corporate distortion of the public dialogue.”

    Mike, what about your film project with the last warmists in a city in the Antarctic fighting off the hordes of desperate non-believers escaping from an overheating world? Is it already in production?

  88. I guess its real intention was to add it to the “Inconvenient Truth” stable and so to make it available to schools across the country. It doesn’t really matter whether it makes money when it only cost $1.5m and can be used to spread the word to schools for the next 5 years.

  89. But isn’t the idea of a expose documentary which lies through it’s teeth – not only fatuous but arrogant in the extreme to put it to general release?
    The many politicians who make their living spinning the lies of AGW, have much to answer for and have a deluded sense of their own worth and popularity. It is OK talking to the converted in closed off university lecture halls where the deluded orate to their captive sycophantic underlings.

    But take these extremist green views and out to target a wider audience – a paying audience at that – and imho – this highlights the thing that the Hollywood clowns do not get………..

    Nobody, anymore gives a damn about Man Made climate change, because: more importantly nobody any longer believes the myth.

  90. Please, dear sweaty-toothed Tshane3000, take a little time out to engage with some ‘Austrian Economics’ (at http://mises.org/, for instance). There you will discover that the equality you so yearn for can never be attained by the bankrupt ideology you espouse. You will also learn that the system we currently suffer under is not even remotely ‘capitalism’. Once you have engaged with the material emanating from the many great and superior minds you will find there, and internalized the truths found therein, then please feel free to return and offer your sincere apologies to the many people you have offended while frequenting this pinnacle of 21st century open debate!

  91. Shane, if you think that “warmist” and “alarmist” are on par with “denialist”, then maybe you should think about what those words mean and if they are accurate descriptions. Technically, I could be labeled a “warmist”, since I believe that the evidence points to some warming… but I see no reason to be “alarmed” about it, because I see no believable evidence that it is unprecedented or out of control. For the CAGW crowd, spreading “alarm” is clearly the goal, is it not? OTOH, “denialist” implies the willful non-acceptance of some truth. So, calling skeptics “denialists” allows you to shut down the debate (because you have “settled science” on your side). I think this is probably what angers skeptics the most… this assertion that they are ignoring “facts”… that plus the wholesale bastardization of the scientific method for political ends, of course. It seems curious to me that you have a littany of criticisms of the fossil fuel industry that have little or nothing to do with CAGW. That’s your prerogative. But is it possible that you accept CAGW theory because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rather than a critical evaluation of the scince behind it? Just sayin’…

  92. Tshane3000 says at March 13, 2013 at 12:59 am “Fossil fuel extraction is consistently rated as one of the most dangerous occupations. Ever.”

    He is quite right.
    Although he then ruins his case by assuming that this is because of corrupt and evil people who want the deaths of their employees.. but paranoia doesn’t mean he is wrong when he says soft rock mining is dangerous. And probably more dangerous tonne for tonne than the hard rock mining required for the nuclear industry. Of course, tonne for tonne far more coal is dug than uranium but even so, industry is dangerous.

    However, everyone pause for a moment and think about how many people die from the lack of industry? Specifically, how many people die from the lack of fossil fuels, the cheapest of energy sources?

    This isn’t fact free. Life expectancy across the first and third worlds are directly correlated with energy production. In fact development and enegy production are interlinked.
    Hospitals work better with fridges that stay cold.
    Schoolbooks work better with the lights on.
    Food works better when it can be delivered to the hungry.

    In summary, externalities don’t just mean “what I don’t like”. It means the impact on a wider scale than the immediate comsumers.
    There is a reason why every society, ever, has chosen the externalities of cheap fossil fuels. They are worth it.

  93. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 11:23 pm
    “………….Again, looking at small moments– cherry picking–while ignoring the big picture, while claiming this small slice is the only important piece, is a trait of typical conservatives that reveals ignorance. If not ignorance, then a willful and evil intention to dupe others…………”

    This paragraph reminds me of what certain so-called scientists do to promote their own agendum.

  94. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    @D. B. Stealey

    As far as practical economics goes, I’ve refuted you grand and uninformed assertion about socialists not being skilled in economics.

    You also lie. You refuted nothing nor have you proven anything about education or ignorance3 of socialist economic skills. Perhaps if you actually pen a comment, theorem or insight about economics one can judge for themselves. Since you have not, you are merely trying to lie your way out an untenable situation.

  95. @ Tshane3000. So if the film made $0.00 in revenue it would be even more successful?

  96. Scientific illiteracy cuts both ways. Yes, you can get a large group of people to believe in a fake hockey stick. No, you can’t get large crowds of people out to movies or demonstrations because it’s not just that they don’t understand – they just don’t care. Otherwise they would have taken the time to learn the truth.

  97. TShane3000…………..You obviously dont actually know anything about science.

    You also dont know what an “argument” is: simply referring to lists of articles by other people is not an argument. For it to be so you would need to have been the authorof those articles in the first place.

    All you are doing is blindly following the opinions of others.

    As for deaths from coal…that is the most pathetic sophistry I have ever seen. At least 250 million deaths have resulted from Environmentalists obtaining the end of free use of DDT.

    If you have any balls you will stick around here. But somehow I suspect yours is a flying visit and you wont be back but a few times at most. Because this site will challenge your bigotry if you do and your bigotry rests on unsure footing. So you will experience dissonance and dissapear back whereyou came from.

  98. Tshane, you’re entertaining… probably not in the manner you think you are, however.

    Here’s a really simple concept: more people would die and live miserable, short lives WITHOUT fossil fuels than what we have now.

    If you actually feel the dismantling of our civilization, or any portion of it, is desirable, then you’d have to come up with a credible alternative. However, you can’t. Because at the moment, with our level of scientific understanding and technology, there is no better alternative. We’re barely above the level of medieval times, with badly misinformed luddites protesting and blocking credible nuclear alternatives, governments blocking easy access to known petroleum reserves, and deliberate paid misinformation everywhere. Alas, even the internet, which many of us had great hope for, has been overrun by deliberate misinformation and corporate interests. Or, as I refer to them, Big Left. Giant, non-producing, charity beggars, who literally steal your money that YOU think is being put to good use and instead divert it to damaging and non-productive “social” engineering.,. while a significant portion slides into their pockets.

    I know people like you, I’m sure we all do. You think you have answers. You don’t even understand the questions. You think the world AS IT IS is a horrible place, you don’t understand history. You think fossil fuels are the worst thing ever for the planet, you don’t comprehend simple Science. You think anyone on the right or “Republican” cares nothing about the environment, you have it completely backwards.

    Maybe one day you’ll understand how wrong you are in so many ways. That day, sadly, is not today.

  99. “Greedy Lying Bastards”. Can someone confirm – is this a film about Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hanson, ‘climategate’ emailers, pal peer review, climatic research funding, Greenpeace, WWF or the UEA?

  100. TShane3000…re your Socialist skills in economics that israther dwarfeed by their skills at oppression and killing people, at least 200 million.

    Re your narrative about incidental deaths resulting ftrom coal miningsomehow validating opposition to it, the same specious sophistry would demand action to ban all private motor vehicles, which kill vastly more people in accidents every year.

    Re your equation between terms such as “warmist” and “denialist” you seem blind to basic human consideration of the special significance of the term “denial”. Terms such as”warmist” are labels but labels are no ad-hominem. Clearly you dont know what the phrase means. Every time you use the term “denialist” in an attenmpyt to sleight those you simply disagree with you trivialise one of the most appalling crimes of history and insult both its victims and its survivors.

    Attempts to rationalise a failed opening for a movie as not a failed opening for a movie by referring not to its performance at opening but hypothetical future events does not impress. It looks desperate.

  101. Furthermore, TShane3000, yourpomposity and arrogant blustering suggestsyou dont actually get to test your overblown bag of wind up against actual people in the real world who might disagree with you and add punctures to your balloon, but prefer to stay inside your mutually self-confirming flock and make comments on web-sitesfrom which you can flee in an instant.

  102. I’d love to know what percentage of people going to see this movie were skeptics just checking to see if they were mentiioned?

  103. Tshane3000, since you obviously are a big government, nanny state aficionado maybe you can answer a question for me. Who are we at war with this week, East Asia or Oceania?

  104. TShane 3000 says ” The purpose of humanity should be…”

    What an idiotic statement. He accuses others of reflecting a religion. But the concept of humanity having a purpose is only possible to hold in a metaphysical context. Any scientist leaving religion aside would have to acknowledge that there is no such thing as “purpose” but only occurrences. What he, like his fellows, hold about “purpose” comes directly out of religious thinking. That is its only origin and locus.

    Furthermore, I would ask TShane3000 a simple question which it will be impossible for him to respond to without adducing either metaphysics or his proximal culture and given socialisation:
    “Why should I give a damn what happens to anybody not yet born”.

    We could actually go further and ask:
    “Why should I give a damn about anybody but myself”

    Whilst a truly scientific outlook would force the purest version of the question:
    “Why should I give a damn”.

    It is literally impossible to maintain the “purpose of humanity” schtick whilst answering these questions without bringing in, as I say, either religion or culture. There are no purely rational means of squaring the two. Hobbes and Mill tried and failed.

    Of course, reading TShane3000 arrogant diatribes suggests he thinks hes sharper than two of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. So may be we will see him fail in trying to rationalise “care” which they could not, but somehow I dont think we will even see him try.

    He (and I bet it is a he, with a fashionable caring beard and RadioHead in his collection) seems to be a child.

  105. TShane: You’re hardly the first socialist to advocate reducing the population of human beings of one variety or another. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc, etc have all given it a go in recent years and all with about the same efficacy as carbon taxes.

    These arguments you make might all sound fresh and innovative to you but that’s just because you are young and inexperienced. Everything you have posted is rehashed nonsense from the 19th and 20th century. If you are going to make such a spectacle of yourself, at least try to be original.

  106. ..oh and the “argument” deployed against Stealey isone of the most dihonest imaginable. He was referring to deaths caused allegedly by CO2 from coal. TShane3000 disingenuously brought up an entirely different context, of industrial accidents. My hunch is he knew damn well what Stealey was referring to. This TShanes style of “debate” is cheap below valuing.

  107. Tshane3000 says:
    March 13, 2013 at 12:59 am

    [Strawman/irrelevant nonsense omitted], which leaves us with…. I got nuttin,’ but for an amusing contrast, here’s more strawman/irrelevant nonsense in response.

    How many convenience store workers are killed each year?
    How many taxi drivers are killed each year?
    How many construction workers die each year?
    How many warehouse workers are killed each year?
    How many farmers and farm workers are killed each year?
    How many EMTs are killed each year?
    How many firemen are killed each year?
    How many overworked/overstressed office workers keel over each year?
    How many commuters are killed each year?

    And if your job doesn’t have some risks…
    How many hikers die each year?
    How many mountain climbers die each year?
    How many canoeists-boaters-kayakers die each year?
    How many recreational runners die each year?
    How many swimmers drown each year?
    How many bicyclists die or are killed each year?
    How many hospital patients are killed each year?
    How many people die needlessly from starvation each year?
    How many people die from fuel poverty each year?

    And so ends Round 1 of Strawman vs Strawman where the score remains tied at 0 to 0.

  108. Tshane3000 – Yep, production and extraction of fossil fuels is a dangerous business. Without fossil fuels, you couldn’t support the current world population nor any expansion of that.

    Nobody likes the way capitalism often seems to put the value of human life at the bottom of it’s agenda – but it works. Money and human greed has been proven over time to be a greater motivator for societies to work together towards common goals than has good intentions. That’s human nature.

  109. mcshame wrote: “The purpose of humanity should be furthering the interests and health and ideals of all humanity,”

    that puts me in mind of my favorite Lewis quotation: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    In another part of that same quote, Lewis foresaw (because it is in fact the same old thing that has been going on since the dawn of history) the uses to which “science” would be put once those who lust for power realized how it could be used:

    “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.”

    (this also explains quite nicely just why nanny Bloomberg is so annoyed at having his dietary orders countermanded this week)

  110. [I]”Warmist epic ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ bombs at the box office

    Posted on March 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    Earns just $45,000.00 nationwide on opening weekend – film cost $1.5 million to make
    [/I]

    I am going to wait until it comes out on DVD

    and then not see it.

    :)

  111. Rob Potter says:
    March 12, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Box Office Mojo lists the number of screens showing the movie as well – 50 listed here. Dividing the take by nine bucks (about usual) gives 5000 people and dividing by the 50 screens comes out at 100 people per screen. I think the weekend is three-night period so 33 people per showing. Not very good considering the publicity it got.

    ========================================================

    actually that would be 33 people per day. Most theatres have multiple showing in a day. If we assume 3 showings a day (between 6PM and midnight), that would be about 11 people per showing. a quick google shows the Angelika Film Center New York is shownig it at 10:30am · 12:40pm · 2:50 · 5:00 · 7:10 · 9:20 – Six times a day, we could be talking as little as an average of 5 or 6 people per showing.

  112. Tshane3000,

    Do you consider it your self-appointed duty to take care of and guide all mankind because you presume they are mostly ignorant compared to yourself?

    I ask the question because all your comments give that impression.

    If you answer yes then why do you think your worldview is superior.

    John

  113. 45K gross? LOL. I hope it cost them 50X that to make the film and that they lose a boatload. Of course they will just make some of it back by cheating on their taxes which is what liberals do – and often is rewarded with a position in the Obama Cabinet. :)

  114. This is poetic justice. The warmists are perhaps realising they are losing the battle for the public mind. But the creation of the documentary for me shows the warmists do not understand why they are losing the battle. Their aim seems to be at the “Lying Bastards”, us skeptics; They should ask why it is people themselves dont actually believe them any more. I find that general public has a lack of trust and sympathy with scientists because science in general does not trust the public to have the bran power to handle complex issues. Time & again the public prove this notion as false, and once again this attack piece is an attempt to simplify the issue another level to make it accessible to “more people”. Listen guys, spend that $1.5 million on educating yourselves as to why the public does not trust warmists any more. Oh p.s. given the computer models are 100% correct now, can you ensure that the BBC in the UK have optional 1 year weather forecast so I can book my holidays for next year?

  115. Tshane3000 says:
    March 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    ..Moderator:

    You deleted my note calling others denialists. In fairness, please also delete all comments calling AGW supporters warmists or alarmists. I agree– ad hominem attacks have no place in a scientific discussion.

    You’ve not been described in full, so here’s the complete broadside: You are a member of the CAGW: Anthropogenic Catastrophic Genocidal Warmistas.

    That’s not an ad hominem attack–that’s the truth; it’s an accurate description. That’s the consequence of policies promulgated and implemented globally by you and your CAGW-believing acolytes. You’re wrong and we’re right. You’ve been brainwashed.

    Note: Tune in to Climategate3 for a real education.

  116. HaHaHAHa Throw some more money at your “Cause”, Daryl Hannah. Maybe you’ll get a clue when you go broke.

  117. There is still hope for “Greedy Lying B8888s” Youtube, as some have already pointed out. Youtube will show millions upon millions of “hits.” Although, even on Youtube, there is a still standard for fudged data:

    Youtube Cracks Down On Views Inflation, Deletes Billions Of View Counts Fudged By The Music Industry
    “Youtube said it has began regulating the views of videos by several recording artists after it claimed the data has been fudged by the music industry, several reports said.”

    Inflating view hits on Youtube is against policy, and it is just plain bad science as well, with serious consequences.
    “Based on Youtube’s policy, the users had violated TOS item 4, Section H, which bans artificially inflating view counts, and calls for the deletion of such videos.”

  118. Schadenfreude isn’t nice, but the thought of OTH professsional babe Darylll Hannah and the other investors in this adolescent project losing big just warms my cockles.

    Any interest in forming a betting pool, on how long it will take DVDs of GLB to appear in the bargain bin of your local supermarkets?

  119. Schadenfreude is just a pretentious way of saying “gloating”. Theres no difference in usage. So I would deny that I exhibit “schadenfreude’. But man am I gloating. Yeah, I is a glaoddin I is!

  120. I Tshane3000 says:
    March 13, 2013 at 12:59 am

    @ D. B. Stealey
    The value of your commentary is so low I will not be responding anymore after this.

    The following article doesn’t even mention all the people killed directly as a result of fossil fuel accidents in production and extraction.

    =====================================================================
    If he wants to learn about something scary (and covered up) he should check this out.

    http://www.dhmo.org/

    (Of course, to act on this leads to death also. What’s an alarmist to do?)

  121. To Tshane3000:

    Your claim that the fossil fuel industry is “…the most dangerous…” is interesting.
    Can I assume from this that you are HUGE advocate of nuclear power, as is
    NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen? (For your passing information, Hansen is
    possibly the world’s biggest pusher of the catastrophic climate change caused
    by human-generated CO2.) After all, it has been pointed out that for
    every ONE person killed by the nuclear power industry, FOUR THOUSAND
    have been killed by the coal industry. And since you have demonstrated
    that you have an over-riding concern for all of suffering humanity, it follows
    that you should be a HUGE advocate of nuclear power. (See, for example,

    http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/.)

  122. @ Tshane3000: Fixed your sentence for ya –

    ” … typical of R̶e̶p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶a̶n̶s̶ enviro-activists and small minded people is they judge things only in terms of money, which is basically the entire problem the film is t̶r̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ failing to expose!

  123. TShame says:

    “The value of your commentary is so low I will not be responding anymore after this.”

    Excellent news. Then we’ll be seeing your back? Don’t let the door smack you…

  124. Here in Phoenix, the movie is showing at only one theater. Its showing 4 times a day. The Box Office Mojo data shows it earned $900 per theater over a three day span. At $9.00 a ticket, that works out to 8.3 viewers per showing. Oh, and they plan on pulling the movie after Thursday. Ouch.

  125. geran says:
    March 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    OT, but I see WUWT’s ENSO meter is approaching exact neutral. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but that could translate to the end of drought in US Midwest.

    Well, I’d be reluctant to say “approaching,” as the weekly datum is pretty noisy:

    Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=09&month=feb&year=2013&fday=11&fmonth=mar&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
    Found target /png/tmp/CTEST13630212025270.txt
    Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST13630212025270.txt
    Data file
    data from 00Z09FEB2013 to 00Z11MAR2013
    “———-”
    -0.476145
    -0.302259
    -0.468448
    -0.292665
    -0.0628619

    Safer to say that the El Niño some people were expecting may not happen, and that betting on a La Niña isn’t a great bet either. They’re like recesssions – they take several months of “conditions” before being declared.

    I’ve been away – I took my wife to Georgia (the last time I was there was in March too and got snowed on both times) for her to start walking back on the Appalachian Trail. On her first day there was 1.3″ of rain in the forecast. She got her tarp up before much fell though.

    That’s helped reduce the drought level in Georgia.

  126. No Stealey, I want to see the 3000 come back…lets see his response to our evisceration of his posts.

  127. Ric Werme says:
    March 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm
    I’ve been away – I took my wife to Georgia (the last time I was there was in March too and got snowed on both times) for her to start walking back on the Appalachian Trail. On her first day there was 1.3″ of rain in the forecast. She got her tarp up before much fell though.

    So you are the ones we have to thank for filling the farm pond back up! Thanks!

    I notice any time I plan a hiking trip it rains at least one of the days. For the sake of Georgia, maybe I should take up hiking again.

  128. D.B. Stealey says:
    March 13, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    TShame says:

    “The value of your commentary is so low I will not be responding anymore after this.”

    Excellent news. Then we’ll be seeing your back? Don’t let the door smack you…
    —–
    Darn it, Stealey! How am I supposed to train a pet troll if you keep driving them all away like that?!? Anthony told me I could keep one if I could teach him not to mess the floors…
    :>

  129. Wamron says:
    March 13, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Schadenfreude is just a pretentious way of saying “gloating”. Theres no difference in usage. So I would deny that I exhibit “schadenfreude’. But man am I gloating. Yeah, I is a glaoddin I is!

    Sorry to be pedantic, Wamrom (it’s just that I am, sigh), but schadenfreude is a sub-specie of gloating which can as well be used to celebrate a personal victory or a friend or relative’s good fortune, as someone else’s misfortune. Schadenfreude is the only word I know of that has the specific meaning of taking pleasure in someone else’s misfortune, which is why I and many others use it – there is no substitute.

  130. @Tshane3000,
    Please come back and play, you are very entertaining.
    Re the 3000, 2999 models failed before this one?
    All the best, great passion and rant, do avoid any contact with firearms, unless you have kevlar boot covers.

  131. I would like to interject a great TED talk video that is relevent to the discussion of a world class scientist amending and apologetically revising his and others, prevelent theory of the sequestering of carbon and finding a solution that was not popular, but none the less true.
    It really is a very good video:

  132. Paddi……your definition of “gloating”.are you sire?

    It doesn’t change the fact that by your definition “gloating” would do just as well. I still see no goodreason to use a German word where an English one exists.

  133. …on the other hand, “Juliusturm” does the job of no English word that I know, but it seems that younger Germans dont know what it means!

  134. Re. the dangers of fossil fuel extraction, when my 17 year old self attended a Health and Safety lecture before my first voyage as a Midshipman I was told that I was entering a profession in which I was “… statistically 27 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than someone in the coal mining industry.”
    I’ve also heard that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

  135. Do we know where the 1.5 million to make the film came from?

    I’ll make a film raving about fossil fuels for 1.5 million, if you introduce me to the fellow who forked out the 1.5 million. Of course, it will be a spoof, but the funny thing is that Alarmists will think I’m dead serious.

  136. Ric Werme says:
    March 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    >MattS says:
    >March 12, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    >> P.S. Anthony needs to put a running comment total under the view in the blog stats section in >the right margin panel.

    >There’s a summary, updated daily, at my Guide to WUWT, see link in the right margin to >http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html

    What I am suggesting is a running total of all the comments on the site (so we can see how we are doing against the 1M comment milestone, not comment totals for individual articles. Your summary while interesting is not what I am asking for.

  137. What I most resent about Tshane’s absurd comments is his implication that people who come here do not care about the enviorment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ll bet the majority of WUWT regulars recycle. [Why don’t you do a poll Anthony]? If you, as I am, are a regular you will see that the site screams enviormental health. Tshane is an obvious troll who may never have visited WUWT before.

  138. @Tshane:
    The reason we are celebrating the low box office returns in dollar terms is that that’s the way the statistics are complied. Raw attendance isn’t counted. If it were, that’s what we’d focus on.

Comments are closed.