Some first clips of new film "Climate Hustle" air on Fox News

While some 40,000 climate advocates are in Paris to try to reach some sort of agreement on wealth redistribution in the name of stopping climate change, there is a small contingent of climate skeptics, including people from the Heartland Institute and CFACT. Marc Morano of Climate depot is about to unveil a film “Climate Hustle” (which I’m also in) that looks to dial back some of the hype by showing the history of the claims and how they keep changing.

CFACT writes via a short email press release:

Watch Sean Hannity feature the first clips of CFACT’s ground-breaking new film “Climate Hustle.”  Warm, cold, more snow, less snow, dry, wet, you name it, the global warming crowd attributes it to “climate change.”  They’ve gotten away with this double talk long enough.  It’s time to take them down.

92 thoughts on “Some first clips of new film "Climate Hustle" air on Fox News

  1. Great!
    It won’t convince Socialists because socialism is for the people, not socialists!
    It certainly won’t be shown on the BBC but it could go viral.

    • Here in Australia it certainly won’t get a run as a “balancing act” on our ABC.
      Just as another sign of of the medias balanced reporting, overnight Tuesday it snowed in the Australian alpine areas.
      And what did we get on the news?
      A story about water bombers arriving from the US to fight bushfires this coming summer and a one line fleeting mention during the weather report on the snow.
      Hot day?=global warming.
      Cold day?=just weather.
      And they wonder why the skeptics are growing in numbers.

      • Actually a cold day = global warming! A few years ago when we had a not-so-unusual very snowy Canadian winter here in Canada my wife (a teacher) stood in the front lobby of her school with her Principal. They watched the falling snow for moment and then he said: “Well, if this isn’t proof of global warming I don’t know what is.”
        Crazy but true story.

      • The ABC’s ( Oz’z BBC) antic du jour for me is their evening weather report where they have the coloured map of the continent shaded for temperature.
        RED is triggered at 30˚ Celcius ( = 86˚ F). HOT HOT HOT BURNING HOT.
        In my mind as someone who has lived here for over 6 decades, 30˚= say Orange, warm, you can go to the beach , get sunburnt and if you are active you will sweat a lot. 40˚ C = 104˚ F is HOT and you get in the shade, take it easy and drink cold drinks.
        Every time I see the ABC Mapaganda, it just shouts out loud CAGW PROPAGANDIST ORAGISATION, FRAUD, ALARMIST, WOLF WOLF WOLF !
        I am re-inoculated each time and remain in good mental health .
        Its an ill wind … as they say.

      • latest poll [uni sunshinecoast research] has 41.5% of ABC staff/ jounalists vote green The sheer stupidity on display is amazing. Most of the rest vote ALP. Duh!!

  2. Can’t wait to see it. I hope Marc has done it right – o truly knock one out of he park.
    The religious will not be converted, but hopefully the general public will see the light.

    • Why didn’t they release this film weeks/months ago when it might have made a difference? The deal has has already been inked in Paris. Talk about being a day late and a dollar short. Sounds like the producer just wants something to complain about instead of doing something proactive?

  3. Well done.
    Just getting this aired is a major step.
    Now lets hope some other networks pick up the story.

  4. Alarmists can’t seem to read the information, nor can they watch it in conference form. Perhaps movie form will work for them.. except this one features scientists instead of moronic celebrities. Has anyone noticed how all their comments about climate change have turned to agribusiness since Leo’s stupid cow movie? Anyway, without sexy celebrities, this film won’t get their juvenile attentions.

      • Superb find AJB.
        More and more this appears to be an obvious end goal of those who are trying to shake up (down) the fossil fuel industry.
        Such a travesty that they had to get there in such a circle jerk fashion.
        I’m definitely eager to hear more tidbits of who is funding what if you find them.
        Thanks a bunch for your link.

      • One needs to be built and run for five + years. Then modified; Five more built run and modified again.
        Note as we experience, we learn.
        We will make mistakes.

        • Yup, didn’t catch that article before so thanks, but have been following Terrapower. I am leery about such companies because they lean so heavily on a very small subset of super rich people who can pull the plug whenever they feel like it.
          If follow the money is apt, so is follow the revolving door. I have noticed a fair number of high profile government folks joining NGOs or special interest groups that are promoting MSRs (at least tangentially). Something is up.
          The little light bulb went on for me when I read Thatcher’s history with the mining unions and oil suppliers. She saw potential in using CO2 as a means to steer her country towards nuke power. I am sure she didn’t realize the strange bedfellows she would create with such an idea, but stranger allies have arisen from stranger circumstances. I don’t judge too harshly. I also don’t think old ideas like that die and I think there is far more mimicry in power circles than original thought.
          I am certainly eager to learn more about who is doing what with MSRs.
          Back in the real world we are at least 10 years away from MSR showtime, so in the meantime we are gonna duke it out with fossil and expensive wind/solar. That pisses me off because it’s such a silly way to run a railroad, but I am not King Canute.

      • BTW, I don’t agree with your conspiracy theory. Try the last sentence of this old presentation instead for the half-life of progress. We are where we are. If Rio and Agenda21 mass indoctrination had never happened, some other political product of chaotic evolution would persist. The rest is just politics as usual: Baubles, beeds and Kumbya. Left, right around and around.

        • “BTW, I don’t agree with your conspiracy theory”
          Were you tawking to me ?
          If so, I didn’t think I painted it as a conspiracy theory.
          If I did I will have to self examine that tone/content.

      • knutesea
        If it matters to you, “More and more this appears to be an obvious end goal of those who are trying to shake up (down) the fossil fuel industry.” is what caused my conspiracy meter to blip.
        Here’s another tidbit link for you, a bit closer to home. The UK probably has no choice but to build more GEN II/III stuff to get by till all this comes on stream for real. Should have been done years ago of course but if the pace of change picks up, rock and a hard place stuff. A bit boring in places but stick with it 🙂

      • I tried to send this video to friends but it has been pulled. Anyone know what happened to it or an alternate source?

    • The PR says: “signed a memorandum of understanding…to develop”, is that the same as a sale?
      The ThorCon website suggests it hasn’t passed NRC testing? It will be interesting to see how “Every four years the entire primary loop is changed out, ” play out. An interesting one to follow. It could be a game changer or a failure.

    • And wouldn’t you know it, the Lemhi Pass along the Idaho-Montana border, has one of the world’s largest high-quality deposits of thorium

    • Might want to get that checked, Paul. Could be DVT (deep vein thrombosis) ;o)
      (I get the reference, though I can’t recall the name off the top of my head of the talking head who got the original thrill up his leg. It’ll come to me after a while.)

      • I said, ” It’ll come to me after a while.”
        But not before several of the usual suspects saved me from a brain cramp by remembering who it was. Thanks, all.

      • I was sitting still for a while… now I am afraid to move for fear of that thrombus going to my brain! Yeah… it was “thrill” and it was Mathews…. but you all got the reference despite my botching the quote and suffering a stroke. 🙂

  5. One of the things that is starting to bug me is that you DONT have to be a scientist to understand the history of climate. Where it’s been, where it is and how man had nearly NOTHING to do with it before and nearly NOTHING to do with it now.
    It bugs me that part of the narrative is to make commoners afraid to discuss the obvious history that anyone can understand.
    Kind of reminds me of how bankers make the business of banking seem far more complicated than it actually is.

  6. Marc misspoke himself halfway through when he was explaining that storms etc were fewer now than in the past: he said that in the days of lower CO2 we had less (sic) storms. What he meant to say was that when CO2 was lower the frequency of storms was higher (compared to the frequency at today’s 400 ppm).

    • Frequency and severity.
      It’s often hard to say what you mean on TV, even more so in that format, when you’re liable to be interrupted at any second by a talk show host.
      Even people who speak in public every day slip up, as the elder Bush did when he moved Pearl Harbor to September. Obama and Gore are worse. Their brains slip into neutral or never get engaged on a regular basis, hence the need for teleprompters.

  7. The idea is to release this to movie theaters before going to DVD or getting it broadcast. Put pressure on your favorite theater to carry it. If enough of your friends ask too it might get booked. But it won’t if you don’t let your theater manager know there is an audience.

      • But then he doesn’t re-coup his expense. Besides, it’s easy to ignore another YouTube video. If it has a theatrical release it will garner some press and a few non-skeptics who suspect they’re being lied to by MSM will be curious enough to pony up. After all, Gore’s movie was released into theaters when it deserved to be straight-to-DVD. It is hard to ignore a theatrical release.

  8. Mark Morano did make one misstatement though.
    He said at about 5:30
    “By the way, Droughts, Extreme Weather, Floods, Hurricanes, Tornados, we detailed this in the film, Not only are they not increasing, on many metrics they are actually declining so if we actually…when CO2 was lower in the atmosphere, we had Less Storminess”
    I believe he meant to say that when CO2 was lower, we had more storminess

  9. Trump was straight to the point. In view of the events in Paris of last month, this COP could never be less relevant to the age that we live in. It is madness that there are so many leaders discussing ineffective policy that will neither reduce global CO2 still less have any measurable impact on temperatures, rather than addressing the real problems that the world is right now facing.
    I bet that if a poll was conducted asking people what they would like to see these world leaders address, Climate change would come way down on the list gaining very few votes.
    Incidentally, there was a slight error with respect to “less storminess” The interviewee said that it was less stormy in the past when there was less CO2 when he clearly meant to say that in the past when there was less CO2 it was more stormy.

  10. The good thing about this film is the web allows people to inform themselves without having to rely on the effete elite, rent seekers and ne-er do well yobs who are incapable of a civilised deabate.
    I was once moderated on this site from memory by Mr Watts for making a reference about greens comparing them with brown shirted fascist and I understood his reasons. With the passage of time and their attempts to rewrite history I am not sure.
    I believe many people on this site are environmentalists but not in such a way that they would take things to extremes?

  11. (around 1:50) 300,000 T of CO2 which is less than 1% of what NYC produces in a year
    I also produce less that 1% of what NYC produces in a year.
    Just sayin’

    • DAV,
      I produce less than 1% of what Presque Isle, Maine, produces, in a day, or a month, or a decade.
      Can I have my medal now?

  12. Breaking News:
    President Obama has just announced that after the conclusion of the Climate Summit, he and the First Family will NOT be returning to the White House. Instead they will be taking up residence at Versailles.
    “We took a tour and Michelle really likes the place”, said the President. “And living in that atmosphere, makes it so much easier to properly govern the rest of the world”, he said.

  13. Unless there are two films with the same name, this is over a year old. Why the hype for a year old film? If it didn’t do any good last year, it won’t do much this year.

  14. If the footage about Gore is correct then it should be shown over and over and over again to every possible audience. The man whose movie reinforced to the masses that CO2 was a poison to the world is too damn self important to fly with the masses in an effort to mitigate his own CO2 effects. He is so self important that he does not realize that he is the world’s biggest hypocrite, by a long way. And he is in POTUS’ ear. What an embarrassment to the CAGW crowd who I am certain would not dare criticize him here or anywhere else. Greetings from Oz.

      • Idiot,
        That’s not what 4 eyes wrote. He never mentioned AGW, which makes your comment juswt another strawman fallacy.
        But when logical fallacies are all you’ve got, I guess that’s what you have to use…

      • Whether there is AGW or not, climate hypocrites like Gore and Obama are clearly not concerned enough to lower there own carbon footprints one iota. If they were as alarmed as they want us to be, they would set an example. Why fly 50-thousand people to Paris to talk about fighting climate change? If they can pilot unmanned drones remotely using video, they can certainly hold a climate-change conference by video and save all those CO2 emissions. When they are willing to lower their carbon footprints to match mine, then I will know they’re serious. Until then, don’t expect me to lower my carbon footprint even lower so these elites can continue to fly their private jets all over the world, attend climate-change parties dressed up as scientific conferences, and give each other awards for saving the planet with their empty rhetoric. I’m not interested.

        • Tu Quoque
          While entirely distasteful and likely to make my carotid throb, it IS a version of the ad hom.
          Even the biggest hypocrite can reveal a fact as distasteful as it can be from their lips to my ears.

  15. Timely film, unfortunate title. I don’t believe in any climate hustle. I don’t think anyone on either side is trying to “hustle” this issue. In any case, if you want to change people’s minds on AGW it’s important to stick to the science and play down the hostility. When you accuse people of being dishonest, their defenses go up and they’re not willing to listen to anything else you have to say. If you point out where they’ve been mistaken, then maybe there’s some hope. The worst tactic is to get defensive.

    • I’ll reserve judgement on the title until I see the film. Most people who believe that Global Warming Theory is true are deceived and not deceivers. However, the film may focus on those who know better but carry on the pretense for their own benefit. Such as Albert Gore, Jr. If it effectively rebuts the AGW arguments but doesn’t make the case that some people profit while knowing their selling piffle, then I will agree that ‘hustle’ was a poor word choice.

      • Speaking of poor word choice, I meant “they’re selling piffle” not “their selling piffle.” Sorry

    • Au contraire. There is plenty of hustling going on; all on the Warmunist side, and they need to be called on it. We’ve heard that “stick to the science” schtick before. Way, way too late for that.

  16. Hannity said something at about 5:40 about seeing a President that has lost touch with what his priority should be.
    I think Hannity was wrong.
    Obama knows exactly what his priorities are and he’s using “The War on Climate” to achieve it.
    I forget his name but there was someone in ancient history that had his army attack the sea. Many say that is proof he was crazy. Some say he did it to establish control and obedience of his troops. (Crazy like a fox.)
    Whichever is correct, Obama and the rest in Paris have us involved in a shell game.

  17. Although I very much despise the CAGW communist pinheads, this Hannity clip views like an info-mercial. It was quite obviously scripted and staged, although Geraldo didn’t seem to like the script (It’s got to grind on him playing 2nd to Hannity). I think Hannity, bless his heart, does a disservice to the skeptic movement with a piece like that. It needs to be real guys.

  18. 1 Dec: The Hill: Timothy Cama: 73 more companies back Obama on climate pact
    The signatories announced Tuesday include big, recognizable names like Inc., DuPont, Staples Inc., MGM Resorts International, JetBlue Airways Corp. and 21st Century Fox, the parent company of the ***right-leaning FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
    Many of the companies on the pledge separately bought an ad Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal expressing their support for a low-carbon economy and for a strong deal in Paris…
    2 Dec: Accuracy in Media blog: Don Irvine: Fox News, Wall Street Journal Sign Obama Climate Pledge
    The parent companies of conservative cable news network Fox News Channel and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal have signed onto a White House pledge to combat climate change.
    From the White House statement…
    What is surprising, though, is that climate change fear-mongerers MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not on the list, proving that their belief in climate change may not be what they say it is.
    ***Fox News is owned by 21st Century Fox; Wall St Journal is owned by News Corp:
    30 Nov: White House Announces Additional Commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge
    The following companies have joined the pledge:
    ***NEWS CORP

  19. You need to show more of the good clips on the liberal MSM. On Fox you are talking to the choir.
    Most liberals don’t watch Fox – especially Hannity . The only people who will pay to see it already agree with the skeptic point of view. It has to be free on YouTube or whatever. Sorry guys.

    Geraldo Rivera has always stood ready to “debunk” anyone who appears on Fox News who takes a skeptic position. His mouth being WAY bigger than that of his guests he appears to succeed at this. Rivera’s pompous blather overwhelms his reasonable guests who don’t realize Rivera has no intention of letting them make their points. Rivera spreads junk science like a snail spreads slime.
    This time around he got caught in a bind. The stuff on Morano’s film was so obviously true that he couldn’t refute any of it without making himself look like the lying fool he is. (Plus Morano has broadcast presentation skills. He is no fish in a barrel, Rivera’s usual prey.)
    Notice what Rivera did. He did everything he could to take the attention away from Morano’s film. Instead of talking about the film — which was what the program was about — Rivera talked about ISIS selling oil to Turkey, etc. — anything to avoid talking about the film.
    Fox News really needs to fire Rivera. He is not honest in the way he present the news and discusses issues. That, in the long run, hurts Fox’s reputation.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  21. If the film generates enough views on YouTube it will get advertising revenue.
    Can’t wait to see it. Good luck from tropical Cairns Australia.

  22. I think if the ice cores had been dug up in the 1960s we would not be having this argument.
    The first Earth Day was in 1974.
    “By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years.
    During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade. “
    “SPENCER R. WEART ( ), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park,
    Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center. “

    • It is hard for me to give much credence to Spencer Weart. In a recent Physics Today article he cited the California and recent Texas drouths and “superstorm Sandy” as evidence of climate change without mentioning even more extreme events within recent centuries.

  23. Re the thorium M.O.U., strange with their thousands of workers, vast cash pile and 24/7 coverage of Paris ( whoops can that), there is no mention of this on the BBC.

  24. If you are accusing others of misrepresentation, you really should try not to do the same.
    At about 2:50 he says there was actually the theory that burning fossil fuels was going to block out the sun and cool the Earth, but now thay say that never happened.
    It is widely understood that sulfate aerosols from burning fossil fuels contributed to the cooling mid century. It looks bad for him here – caught out in the very thing he accuses others of doing. They are not saying that never happened at all.

    • Are you really that dense? The claim was that it could cause another ice age, not that it contributed to cooling.
      Having said that, the “ice age scare” argument is not a compelling one, and I wish they would stop making it.

      • Why does everyone here open their comments with an insult?
        You are wrong. He says “before fossil fuels caused global warming fossil fuels caused global cooling. There was actually the theory that fossil fuel burning was going to block out the sun and cool the Earth. Now they are saying that never happened.”
        The theory was right. It did happen. Nobody is saying it did not. He is wrong. He has mis-represented.

      • Sorry seaice1, but I’ve run into literally dozens of AGW supporters that claim the global cooling scare was one article in one magazine and the consensus was still that of CO2 driven warming. Yes, it is revisionist nonsense but it is repeated constantly by the useful idiots.

      • Richard M.
        I did not mention ice ages. He said they had a theory burning fossil fuels would block out the sun and cool the Earth. He said that they now say that never happened. He is wrong. It did happen and they say it did.
        This is important, not nit-picking. If they now say it never happened, it means their theory was wrong. Their theory was not wrong.
        Remember acid rain? Cutting back sulfur emissions to reduce acid rain also cut back sulphate aerosols, so the cooling stopped.
        If you are making a film that uses media statements to pick holes in other peoples arguments you should not make such simple errors yourself.

  25. You think he could get a piece done by another news agency maybe? Difficult to find one, but maybe next he could get interviewed by Weekly World News? Or at this point why not go to the Onion? All equally credible news sources…

Comments are closed.