"Climate Hustle" goes to Washington: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Riveting panel with Gov. Sarah Palin and other guests



(March 31, 2016) The U.S. premiere of CFACT’s groundbreaking new documentary, Climate Hustle will take place at a Capitol Hill briefing in the historic Rayburn Office Building, including a riveting panel discussion on climate change featuring Gov. Sarah Palin and other notable guests. The invitation-only briefing and panel discussion will be held on April 14, 2016 from 4 to 6 p.m. The event comes just a week prior to the opening for signature of the U.N. Paris Agreement on climate change on Earth Day (April 22), and just a short time before Climate Hustle is seen in select U.S. cinemas for a one-night presentation by Fathom Events and SpectiCast on May 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. local time.

With welcoming remarks by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and headlined by Gov. Sarah Palin (2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate; 9th Governor of Alaska), the panel will be taped and shown during the national theater event. The discussion will be moderated by Brent Bozell, Founder and President of the Media Research Center, and will also include other notable experts including respected climatologist Dr. David Legates and a special video appearance by Emmy Award-winning educator Bill Nye the Science Guy. The panel will further examine some of the science, politics, and media coverage of the climate issue, and go far toward helping debunk much of the alarmism and hype exposed in the Climate Hustle film.

David Rothbard, Executive Producer of the film and President of CFACT, said “We are honored to be having Climate Hustle’s U.S. premiere take place on Capitol Hill, and are excited to be bringing the film to life with a provocative discussion featuring some of the biggest names in the climate debate.”

About Climate Hustle

Climate Hustle presented by CFACT and CDR Communications, in partnership with Event Cinema provider SpectiCast, will be seen nationwide in a one-night engagement in select cinemas that debunks the myths and hype about man-made global warming in an informative and entertaining style. The film examines the question of whether there is a genuine scientific consensus about alleged man-made global warming and features more than 30 scientists and experts.

About The Participants:

Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006 following work in journalism and public service as a Mayor/City Manager, and an Oil & Gas Commissioner. In 2008 she made history as the first woman nominated by the Republican Party for national office. Palin has been a successful television host & commentator, international speaker, three times New York Times best-selling author, and star of the Mark Burnett produced, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC. She has sold more than 3.5 million books and has more than 5.8 million followers on social media. Palin is one the Smithsonian Institute’s 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time, twice listed among Time magazine’s Most Influential People in the World, Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women, NEWSMAX’s 100 most influential advocates, and twice one of Barbara Walters’ 10 Most Fascinating People.

Lamar Smith is the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 21st congressional district. Under Smith’s leadership the House Science, Space and Technology Committee has held hearings that have critically examined global warming.

Brent Bozell is a nationally recognized conservative writer and activist who founded the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com and ForAmerica. Bozell serves on numerous conservative boards and has a nationally syndicated column by Creator’s Syndicate.

His work has appeared in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times and National Review.

David Russell Legates is a Climatologist, a Professor at the University of Delaware, and the former Delaware State Climatologist. Legates has authored or coauthored more than 75 peer-reviewed scientific studies, more than 30 book chapters, monographs, communications and reports, and has served on the editorial board of six different professional journals. He has spoken openly in opposition to the extremist view of man-made climate change claims posited by the United Nations.

Climate Hustle will be shown as a one-night event on May 2, 2016 in select cinemas nationwide. For locations and tickets (available Friday, April 1, 2016) and more information visit www.ClimateHustle.com.

Media Access: Because of very limited space, credentialed media who wish to attend the event should kindly request access in advance from our press contact.

About CFACT and CDR Communications:

Climate Hustle is a production of CFACT and CDR Communications, Inc. CFACT, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit public policy organization, founded in 1985, that works to promote sensible policies on issues of environment and development. With an influential and impressive scientific advisory board, aggressive collegiate program, CFACT Europe, United Nations representation, Adopt-A-Village project, Global Social Responsibility program, and “Just the Facts” national radio commentary, CFACT continues to offer genuine positive solutions to today’s global challenges.

CDR Communications, Inc. is an award-winning media production firm founded in 1984 and based in Northern Virginia. CDR has produced thousands of products over the years, one of the latest being the feature film, “For the Glory,” which is currently being distributed around the world. CDR’s professional staff works with high-end motion graphics, animation, music, and celebrity talent in order to effectively and creatively touch audiences.

294 thoughts on “"Climate Hustle" goes to Washington: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Riveting panel with Gov. Sarah Palin and other guests

  1. Why invite Palin? For a huge portion of the population (including a lot of conservatives), this immediately discredits any cause (rightly or wrongly). *cringe*

      • Simon March 31, 2016 at 10:57 am
        Eugene WR Gallun
        The world laughs at her. Honestly outside the US she is pure entertainment and nothing else. She comes across as an unintelligent screeching politician, who just says the dumbest things. Watch her endorsement of Trump and it’s all there to see. It’s like she is a teenage cheerleader.
        I watched her endorsement of Trump, in its entirety on CSPAN. Yes, she has a screechy voice. But I listened to what she said. She’s right on, brilliant and loves America. Besides the tone of her voice, what dumb things did she say? Or is it you, who can only understand what other people say about her?

      • “Honestly outside the US she is pure entertainment and nothing else.”
        You reckon? You want to see how we outside the US regard Hilary Clinton.
        We’re not all “Liberals” or whatever you Americans call them, don’t make the mistake of thinking we are.

      • Catweazle666, you forgot “I never had sex with that woman” (Sorry, maybe, its going to be Man)

    • Why this out and out hatred of Palin? Putting aside pointless name calling, can any of her detractors give a reasoned explanation for their objections to her? Don’t give generalities, give specifics. What exactly did she ever do to make you hate her? She does support Tea Party type conservatives over establishment type Republicans in primaries. Is that the reason? Please explain. Is there something else. Tell me. Is it that she endorsed Trump? But I am sure you hated her long before that. So tell me.
      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Eugene WR Gallun
        The world laughs at her. Honestly outside the US she is pure entertainment and nothing else. She comes across as an unintelligent screeching politician, who just says the dumbest things. Watch her endorsement of Trump and it’s all there to see. It’s like she is a teenage cheerleader.

      • Eugene. What makes you think its hatred? Not thinking someone is qualified to advance past town librarian, does not mean we “hate” her. The list of objections is too long and off topic to discuss here. But I’m sure its longer than the list of her credentials to be associated in any way shape or form with…our position on AGW.
        The fact that they include such a figure, tells me I should certainly waste no time watching this “documentary” as its probably fear-mongering rubbish (then again, the title kind of gives it away)
        Really guys, can’t you stick with the science? Or you think you can play the same game as the Left, and win? You can’t.

      • .LOL..AIG spits out ten lines of political garbage THEN says “Really guys, can’t you stick with the science?”

      • Eugene our resident poet has a point.
        All that is needed (“credentials” if you enjoy that phrase) to be a politician, is for enough people to want you to be a politician. Period. Anything beyond that is some form of snobbery. That is the lesson Trump and Palin are here to announce. If the snobs try too hard to stop them there could be serious violence.

      • I agree with Simon (under). Whether right or wrong, it is a fact that a large number of people view her as comic relief. It might be unfortunate and not giving her due credit, but having her on the rational side of the climate issue might not help its cause. Any which way, how can celebrities, whether political, entertainment or otherwise, can bring anything valuable to the debat. Just saying…

      • Putting aside pointless name calling, can any of her detractors give a reasoned explanation for their objections to her?

        Yes. She supports the candidate who is like a petulant child: Donald Trump.

      • It’s fair to say that if the media scrutinized Hillary half as much the Clinton Dynasty would fall overnight, possibly with convictions and lengthy sentences.
        I listened to an alleged former employee on a radio station a couple of years back and f me, the things he had to say. You can kinda cop when someone is just making stuff up, all I could say was that if it was lies, you need elements of truth to make good lies, it appeared he was telling a lot of truth. Scary stuff, literally, agoing on in Arkansas.
        Maybe if someone would ask them about a tiny airstrip in Arkansas that flew in Contra cocaine and flew out US made weapons.. now that would be News 😀

      • Hi team–I don’t hate Palin–at all. I have friends and family who know her and say she’s great. My point, which I should have clarified, is that rightly or wrongly, the media has painted her into a box. She has not helped herself get out of that box. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle see her as a woman chasing celebrity status at any cost. They automatically tune her out. If you want our argument to fall on open ears, rather than closed, it would be better to use someone with a broader, non-partisan appeal. My comments were about the overall ‘marketing strategy’ here, That said, a LOT of my conservative/libertarian cohorts don’t like how she has the net effect of turning off so many people for precisely that same reason.

      • I find it fascinating how those who are always whinning about our lack of inclusiveness, are so quick to attack those they disagree with.
        Liberals always declare that those they disagree with are stupid, and anyone from a rural background will always be labeled unsophisticated by those who regard themselves as our social superiors.

      • Simon, you are your fellow “sophisticates” may find her “pure entertainment”, but then as someone from a rural background I have come to expect that from many.
        Anyone who is different must be inferior.

      • Theyouk, once we allow the media to determine who we are and are not permitted to listen to then we have already lost the battle.

      • Palin is a big mistake IMHO. It should be ALL scientist ALL with degrees in some field related to climatology.
        She is a hot-button figure that will allow the AGW crowd to easily delegitimizes the film.

      • @Simon
        Really, no specifics from either you or AIG. So typical, spew unjustified hatred and run. As for your description it seems you are confusing Sarah with Hillary. During the 2008 campaign, she was the only one on either ticket qualified by experience for the office of President. No one else had executive credentials.

      • I completely agree. Palin is a BAD choice. She brings zero credibility to what we should be trying for, an actual well publicized SCIENTIFIC debate.

      • DJ Hawkins,
        That’s exactly right. The lemmings think just what their handlers tell them to think. ‘Simon’ has never had an original thought, he’s just a parrot. He’s their kinda guy. He just repeats their talking points.
        Unfortunately, the general public doesn’t see what’s happening; they don’t see how they are being manipulated 24/7/365. There is a non-stop, concerted effort to absolutely demonize any target they fear. It is one of Saul Alinsky’s explicit directives.
        The very day that Romney was nominated, more than 100 hundred million emails went out, direct from the DNC, and authorized by the Obama Administration. That first email showed a caricature of Gov. Romney with a foot-long nose. The message was clear: Romney is Pinocchio! Romney is a LIAR!
        That message was repeated constantly, every day of the campaign. Gov. Romney was totally demonized as a liar, and preposterously, as a racist — despite the fact that he had adopted more than a dozen children, of all races, over many years.
        Romney was demonized for causing mass unemployment, despite the fact that he saved literally thousands of jobs through Bain Capital’s rescuing of mismanaged, failing companies.
        Folks, no one is all good or all bad. But if you let the Media do your thinking for you, pretty soon you will start head-nodding along with them without even realizing it. You will begin to see a demon, whether it’s a new candidate who has proven himself or herself successful, or the demon of runaway global warming. Or “carbon”. Or whatever demon they’re programming you to see.
        Romney is a religious man, and certainly not a liar. But we have a mountain of solid evidence proving that Obama and Hillary are serial, pathological liars. But none of that matters. The Alinsky tactic is to totally demonize any threat. They do that by repeatedly telling the public what to think.
        That tactic is very effective. But it can be countered, by constantly questioning the motives of those doing the demonizing — the people behind the curtain. The ones desperatly trying to manipulate you. To get you head-nodding along with them.
        The same thing happened to the Governor of Alaska (who is derogated by a commenter here as a mere ‘librarian’). Gov. Palin crushed the rampant corruption in that state. That took real courage, and plenty of political skill. It took someone very intelligent, too. But by obeying Alinsky’s directive in Rules for Radicals, Gov. Palin was demonized. If no one else will stick up for her, I will. She is a good, ethical person. That is something extremely threatening to Alinsky’s radicals.
        Now the same thing is happening in spades to Donald Trump; a man who has built more than a hundred skyscrapers. A man who has been far more successful than any other candidate he faces — doubled and squared. A man who just completed his latest $100 million+ project two years ahead of schedule; a very rare accomplishment in big projects.
        Therefore, he is seen as a serious threat to the entrenched politicians and their lobbyists in both parties. The only claim to fame for most of them is their singular, one-trick pony ability to get more votes than their opponents. Lots of them have learned to look voters in the eye, and lie with a sincere smile.
        I know it’s probably hopeless for the general public, but at least for the majority of well educated, intelligent readers here, I would like to believe that you can think for yourselves and see through the media manipulation.
        Observe the ways people behind the scenes are trying to control you: George Soros alone has 187 subsidiary political organizations, and every one of them has the same marching orders: demonize Trump! And if Cruz ever pulls ahead, Soros will issue new marching orders: demonize Cruz!
        Their #1 goal is to get you started head-nodding when you read the news and watch TV, as their vacant-headed announcer babe keeps repeating “Trump hates women”, or “Palin says she can see Russia from her porch, HaHaHa!” Or, “President Obama once again pointed out Romney’s lack of honesty.” None of those things are true. But repeated often enough, they have an effect. As Orwell’s Winston Smith wondered, ‘If the Party says 2+2=5, does that make it true?…’ There are millions of Winston Smiths in the country. But readers here are expected to be smarter than that.
        Only six entities control all U.S. television networks and newspapers, and they clearly march in lockstep. Their goal is to control the public. That way, they control the country. That’s very good for them. But ask yourself: is it good for you? Are we better off being controlled like that?
        Not one TV network or major newspaper seriously questions the “dangerous man-made global warming” narrative. It’s their gospel. Practically every professional organization says the same thing. Do you think it sounds reasonable that all of them take exactly the same position? Especially when ‘AGW’ has never even been quantified, and after we’ve been through the most benign century-long global climate, ever? Or, after twenty years of rising CO2, without a single example of any global harm as a result?
        The same manipulative tactics are being directed at those who threaten them the most. And by “them”, I mean those who are the cause of the economic and political disasters we’re in right now. They are the ones responsible.
        But their ‘solution’ is to get someone elected who is just like them; someone who won’t really change anything. Someone who will only tweak things a little bit for cosmetic purposes. Is that what we need? Is it smart to re-hire the same kind of self-serving and/or incompetent people, who only want the money and power that comes from the system they set up and gamed?
        So instead of doing the usual monkey-pile on Ms Palin, wouldn’t it be better to think a little bit about why a perfectly normal woman — who would be a far better next door neighbor than any of her detractors — is so hated?
        Just like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, there is no one from Gov. Palin’s past who has come out and joined the media’s monkey-pile. And you can bet they’ve been offered plenty for a ‘tell all’ book, just like Cruz or Trump’s ex-wives and employees. But the people who know them best have uniformly good things to say about them. Compare that to people from both Clinton’s past, or any of the others. The WaPo investigated Obama’s colleges, but were unable to find a single college student who had attended classes with Obama. Buying ‘a pig in a poke’ comes to mind…
        We don’t even know what country President Obama was born in, but it probably wasn’t the U.S. I am no birther, but I know that if legitimate, verified documents existed, they would have been broadcast around the world, instead of the computer-generated forgeries that were produced. And if Obama ad gotten good grades in school, his transcripts would be printed on posters, in books, in emails, on lapel pins, on coffee mugs, etc. Instead… *crickets*.
        President Obama still has a law firm on retainer that threatens anyone asking about his grades or investigating his past. What does that tell you? Instead, the demonizers of Palin, Cruz, Trump, etc, shout: “Hey, look over there! A squirrel!”
        Folks with common sense are always saying: don’t listen to what politicians and the media say. Look at what they do! Watch their actions. That will tell you the true story.
        Every one of us has a choice: either buy into the hatred, the demonization, and the attempts at of personal destruction — or decide whatever the real question is, based on its merits, and make your decision. Don’t listen; watch them. You will see what they’re trying to make you do. You will see their Agenda. And it is not in your best interest. Look around. If you don’t see the mark… then it’s you.
        Commenters who are wringing their hands because Gov. Palin has been demonized are playing right into the hands of those whose mission is to control what the public thinks. Are you gonna let them do that? Are you that much of a head-nodding chump? On this site at least, I would think not. Most of us here are skeptics — and that quality doesn’t begin and end with the hard sciences. Skepticism applies to politics, too.
        Me, I want someone very different from the current gang of corrupt politicians. There are a couple of candidates who qualify. Because as Albert Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of insanity.
        I think if Einstein was alive today, he’d be a regular WUWT reader. And I think he would prefer someone new.

      • Simon —
        I asked for specific reasons why Palin is disliked. You state, “The world laughs at her. Honestly, outside the US she is pure entertainment and nothing else.”
        That’s a surprising statement that seems to come out of YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. Can you supply any supporting evidence that the world laughs at her? Perhaps your small circle of friends laugh at her (perhaps even a few of your friends live in foreign countries) and you think that reflective of the whole earth’s opinion of her (most of the world probably doesn’t have the faintest idea who she is) — but let me remind you of the famous statement of the person, speaking of Richard Nixon’s election, who said that the election had to be fixed because “no one I know voted for him”. That bravo statement certainly reflected a narrow minded incompetence. Perhaps you also lack a wide variety of differing friends? Perhaps you live in a bubble? So your opening statement merely reflects your hated of Palin — it does nothing to explain why you hate her which is what I asked for.
        “She comes across as an unintelligent screeching politician who just says the dumbest things”
        So you have video of her screeching? None exists, That is merely another smear. You are demonstrating your hated not giving reasons for it. Unintelligent? So she says things you don’t like or agree with. That in your mind makes her unintelligent. So for the same reasons I hold that opinion of you — you are obviously not very intelligent.
        She says dumb things — name some.
        “Watch her endorsement of Trump and it’s all there to see. It’s like she is a teenage cheerleader.”
        Everything thing you see about her is colored by your already existing hated of her. Was she supposed to give a policy speech? Was she supposed to pull all the attention onto herself? What the hell do you think an endorsement is? IT IS CHEERLEADING!!!! And I think you are the teenager. What you write says that about you.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “.LOL..AIG spits out ten lines of political garbage THEN says “Really guys, can’t you stick with the science?””
        How is that even a response to what I said? If you want to have a political discussion, fine. If you want to have a scientific discussion, or a discussion on the science, then don’t bring politics into it. I didn’t bring Sarah Palin in here. The organizers of this event did.
        So congratulations on bringing politics into it, and turning off everyone to this “documentary”.
        I’m not going to expect you to understand why your comment is a non-response, however.

      • AIG
        You are posting after I wrote and not before. You were not who I was responding too. Nevertheless……
        “Not thinking someone is qualified to advance past town librarian does not mean we “hate” her”.
        This statement shows that you don’t think too deeply before you write (admittedly I am guilty of such things myself).She climbed the ladder serving in several positions before become a very popular governor. In those positions how did she demonstrate that she was incompetent?” If so how so? If you can’t name any instances of incompetence then you have no reason to hold and state the above opinion except emotional bias. Think about it.
        “The list of objection is too long and off topic to discuss here.”
        OK, just give me three. Bet you it all boils down to — I don’t like her politics therefore she is an incompetent.
        To deal with the rest of your post without repeating your statements —
        Like it or not Palin has “star power”. Her presence will provide a lot of free publicity and make a large number of people aware of the movie. That translates into more people going to see it.
        I feel you never had any intention of going to see this movie and to blame it on the presence of Palin I think is an out and out lie. But, of course, I truly don’t know the content of your heart.
        Your scornfully calling the movie “this documentary” without ever having seen the movie speak much about your closed mind. “Fear mongering rubbish”? Again you have not yet seen the movie — how do you know? Because Palin is in part of it? Your prejudices prevent you from thinking logically.
        You think they are playing the same game as the left? So you believe that exposing lies is the same as telling lies? Odd way of thinking. Indeed, very odd.
        By the way, Sarah Palin, a former politician, has never said anything stupid or wrong about global warming and climate change. Compare her to Al Gore, a former politician, who has said practically every stupid thing there is to say about global warming and climate change.
        The truth is publishing papers in obscure journals will not sway the public. Telling the public what the science is in entertaining terms they understand will do wonders for the cause. Let our side speak with a loud voice! LET THE PUBLIC HEAR!!!!
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • kalya22 — What does she bring? Well, for one thing a hell of a lot of free publicity. — Eugene WR Gallun

      • Theyouk —
        So everyone the leftwing media paints into a box should just go disappear? The leftwing media attempts to paint everyone on the right into a box. Haven’t you noticed that all Republicans are racists etc? But you forget how few people believe what the media says anymore.
        You say a lot of people on both side of the aisle see her as seeking celebrity status? Hahaha! Considering what name recognition means to politicians that sounds like stark jealousy!
        (By the way, nothing to do with your post but have you noticed that the leftwing media praises Republicans who “cross the isle” but I can’t think of any Democrats who dares even talk of crossing the aisle to side with Republicans. They are afraid of the tar and feathers and being ridden out of town on a rail).
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Yes. She supports the candidate who is like a petulant child: Donald Trump.
        For some unknown reason, she grants her favor to the guy that spit in the eye of the media. Why would she feel this way? A great mystery, I’m sure.

      • Simon: “The world laughs at her”
        YOU don’t constitute “the world”, Simon.
        Not even close.

      • Keating, you’re so insecure you find it necessary to post under legitimate commenters’ identities.
        Now it’s Manley. How about if I give him a call, too.
        [Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

      • I live in OZ both Sarah Palin and Trump seem to me to be the only way America can break the chains of Washington that now shackle your future. There a most likely other that can help but I do not know of them.
        Yankee land as we refer to you mob over there needs a bloody good clean out.

      • Most of her detractors, I’d bet, take their opinions from edited clips on left-wing media outlets or from Saturday Night Live skits and not from listening to the entirety of her positions. Most also just hate all conservatives. Those same people will defend the constantly recurring scandals of Hillary Clinton as a “vast right-wing conspiracy”.

      • Eugene – As an Englishman – Palin is seen as a joke on this side of the pond – and with good reason. She is every Europeans nightmare experience of dealing with Americans whose experience of anything outside there State or country is zilch.
        I politely suggest you listen to those with reservations

      • @dbstealey . . That is a great comment and I have, if it’s OK with you, clipped it and saved it for future use in similar debates.
        @Eugene WR Gallun . . Your comments resonate with me boss. I have watched how the media thinks for people who are too weak to form their own opinions and there are far too many of them. “We hate Trump because . . his hair”. Absurd but they vote. How much has D J Trump spent on media? Maybe that’s another reason the media hates him.
        This continual manipulation of the great unwashed is disgusting but thanks to the huge unregulated information flow and the ease with which we can exchange opinions and views perhaps we will be able to break free of these manipulators. No wonder the UN is so keen to capture and control the Internet.
        This site is brilliant in so many ways but the commentariat are an outstanding component. That is in an important way down to Anthony’s tolerant and continually evolving approach to moderation. Like many others I have learned so much about so much, not just climate change, thanks to so many people WUWT?

        • Keitho,
          Of course it’s OK. There are other good comments in the same sub-thread. Eugene Gallun’s, catweazel’s, Evan Jones’, etc.
          Some of us are fascinated by ‘Simon’, who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag. He’s a poster boy for climate alarmism, who reminds me of this jamoke. I’ll bet he has the same crazed eyes, too.
          The recurring theme among (almost) all alarmists is their reliance on logical fallacies, deflection, emotion, and misrepresenting skeptics’ arguments. They cannot make a case based on science, so they fall back on those tactics. And the fact that the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is soundly debunking their CO2=global warming conjecture is always ignored.
          But since this debate has morphed into a ‘Big Lie’ political argument, science doesn’t matter. Only the Big Lie matters, and they play that for all it’s worth.

    • IMO because it will outrage the MSM and hopefully generate some press. She is not as dumb as the MSM would like you to believe. Admittedly, she can be irritating.

      • Agree, 100% image selling failure, not as slick as Clinton’s team who must have to bury prodigious amounts of “issues” before they become a problem. They must be super human 😀

      • I see her as a good person who like the salmon here in Sacramento in November is repeatedly tossed around by Media sea lions. They control the game, they control the image, and she provides just enough sound bites for them to sell as negative-feedback-about-conservatives entertainment.

      • TomB —
        My thinking is that Bill Nye provides the comic relief. And can you think of anyone better to expose global warming for the farce it is than Bill Nye? — unintentionally, of course. Bill Nye is like a drum beating loudly but utterly empty inside. And like a drum he is going to get thumped.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • At last! I’ve been scanning all the commentary to this point, looking for a question on including Bill Nye the (so-called) Science Guy. His inclusion in the panel can only be rationalized by a more succinct explanation of how the producers wish the entire project to be seen. Nye is ‘bought and paid for’. Palin has lived at the intersection of politics, green activism and energy economics. She needs celebrity to make a mark. Nye needs only a bow tie and a lab coat and, of course, a TV ‘lab’).

    • Palin!
      Both sides of “the debate” will watch that! This is going to be fun!
      “Let us now hear the opinion on anthropogenic climate change from Gov. Palin who can see Russia from her house. Mrs. Palin your turn…”

      • Wagen —
        Yes, Palin did say that she can see Russia from her house — but it was said in the context of delivering a wholly accurate prediction of how Russia, in the long term, was going to reestablish itself as America’s worst enemy. Notice the build up of nuclear weapons in Russia? Its little military adventures beyond its borders?
        And for saying what was a 100% accurate prediction about Russia’s future behavior she was mocked outrageously. She had the foresight that Hillary Clinton lacked. And so why do you just say in mocking tones that she said — I can see Russia from my house — instead of praising her for her whole statement about the coming belligerence of Russia?
        Do you ever mock Hillary Clinton for being totally wrong about her beliefs about Russia? Bet you never ever bring that up.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “Yes, Palin did say that she can see Russia from her house “
        No she didn’t.
        That was that sad little wannabe “comedian” Tina Fey.

    • ” a riveting panel discussion on climate change featuring Gov. Sarah Palin…”
      No no no! Sorry but have to agree that her presence definitely lowers the credibility of the event. I’m sure she’s a lovely lady and she is certainly entitled to her views but the nature of her past utterances on a vast number of subjects have found her wanting for any evident intellectual firepower.
      FWIW I’m from ‘the rest of the world’ where Sarah Palin would pretty much be considered to have similar scientific competency as Justin Bieber or Kanye West….

      • PS. I’d love to have my impression to date changed for the better…
        But much more importantly, when are they going to release this film outside the US!?

  2. …Notice Bill Nye will only be there in a recorded video ? Too afraid to actually have to answer questions !!

    • To be fair to Bill, after his news interview with Lindzen, it isn’t surprising. Nye was shown to be utterly clueless and basing his alarmist statements on snippets of media coverage and water cooler discussion it seems, given the accuracy of what he was saying.

      • Bill Nye is a circus clown who dresses up in bow tie to play a parody of a scientist to amuse small children.
        He’s a buffoon.
        I have no idea why Marc Morano would want to associate this clown with this film.

    • Matt, we know YOUR presence does not taint , anything, but wait a minute, was that not you I saw picking your nose at the traffic lights yesterday morning ? and I bet you have not even the intelligence to wash you hands!

  3. Have not been to the movies in several years but am hoping Climate Hustle plays in the Portland, Oregon area. Anyone know a way to find out what the “select cinemas” will be?. — Eugene WR Gallun

  4. She is really an unfortunate choice. She may be able to see Russia from Alaska, but I don’t think she has the credentials to see through the intricacies the climate debate.

      • Trebla is correct.

        It would be difficult to find a poorer choice for a headline. She’s not an inferior choice because she’s different; she’s an inferior choice because she’s not capable.

      • Uh, you do realize that you really CAN see Russia from Alaska. That her point was that, as Governor of Alaska (which borders Canada and Russia – go look at a map if you don’t believe me), she had more routine dealings with foreign states than Barack Obama. All of which is true.

      • @ JohnWho March 31, 2016 at 1:06 pm
        So it appears that both you and TomB agree Trembla’s comment was accurate, despite being called out by Marcus.
        The problem is Palin was responding to a question about how Alaska’s proximity to Russian territory bolstered her foreign policy chops and understanding of international affairs relative to Russia’s military positioning toward the sovereign country of Georgia in 2008 … that was her response. Plus, I think, she said she would see Russian jets flying over Alaskan territory.

      • John@EF –
        Yes, Palin’s comment was both accurate and in context with the conversation she was having.
        It has no bearing or reflection on whether she should be involved in “climate change” discussions.
        I agree with those “downstream” in this topic that she is a divisive figure, like Al Gore, and it does not make sense to involve her in skeptical conversations or promotions.

      • As usual John@EF misrepresents.
        Linking to a 12 second video is typical propaganda, and thus, is dishonest.
        The basic fact of the matter is that Russia can be seen from Alaska. Palin’s original comment about Russia was:
        “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
        Furthermore, John@EF’s condescending and ignorant comment alleging that Gov. Palin is “not capable” shows John@EF to be just another buffoon who tries to tar his superior because he himself is incapable.
        Incapable of what, you may ask? Answer: incapable of governing the largest state in the U.S., during which time Ms Palin wiped out the endemic corruption in the political establishment. First of all, John@EF would have to be capable of getting elected governor, and the real world shows he isn’t. I would be very surprised if John@EF is capable of getting elected to anything.
        So, to recap: Sarah Palin was absolutely correct in her statement. It was factual; there is no credible dispute. John@EF is simply trying to denigrate someone with more innate intelligence and skills than he possesses. A chihuahua nipping at someone’s heel comes to mind.
        That kind of pathetic attempt to denigrate someone because the denigrator disagrees with their point of view is a textbook definition of an ad hominem attack. Being a climate alarmist with no credible supporting measurements, John@EF is playing (in this case) the woman instead of playing the ball. That’s one of the most misused tactics of the alarmist cult. They lack believable science, so they attack the person.
        Depicable. But then, if the alarmist crowd was composed of stand-up guys, rather than a contingent of ‘John@EF’s’, the debate would have been over long ago; even before “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe” had morphed into “climate change”.
        If John@EF wants to pick on women — which he obviously does — there are plenty available who have no moral standards, or basic honesty. But Ms Palin isn’t in that subset, so John@EF just lost the point, and the argument.

      • Marcus — Didn’t know that. Guess i got taken in by the main stream media too. — Eugene WR Gallun

    • “intricacies [of] the climate debate”….??? There are no ‘intricacies’ – there is the truth and there are lies. The media seem to have the ball in that respect – it’s past time the alternative view had as high a profile.

      • There’s…no..intricacies to the debate? Well, I suppose Watt’s blog has been an utter failure then, if this is the thinking it has produced.

    • The quote about her seeing Russia from Alaska was actually said by Tina Fey in a Saturday Night Live skit. Bill Nye is by education, an mechanical engineer.

      • She did say that you can see Russia from “land in Alaska” which is true, you can. The “from my house” was all Tina Fey.

    • It really is fascinating how those who consider themselves special look down on anyone from a different background.

    • “She is really an unfortunate choice. She may be able to see Russia from Alaska, but I don’t think she has the credentials to see through the intricacies the climate debate.”
      Why would you think she was chosen for her “climate science” credentials? She’s going to be introducing people with such credentials, not debating CAGW advocates . .

    • Trebla March 31, 2016 at 10:23 am
      She is really an unfortunate choice. She may be able to see Russia from Alaska, but I don’t think she has the credentials to see through the intricacies the climate debate.
      Please tell me you know Palin never said “…could see Russia from Alaska.” Do you really not know that was a Saturday night live skit??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrUdIkoJEU

      • Please tell me you know Palin never said “…could see Russia from Alaska.”
        Palin did say that. Tina Fey said “from my house.” Palin’s reply, in answer to what insight she thought she had into Russian actions due to the proximity of her state, was only a bit less vacuous. No wonder it was spoofed.
        Here’s the original interview (question/answer at 5:09). There was no further clarification from her on the question.

        … where can judge the insight of the rest of her remarks.

    • “..Wow, “Climate Hustle” is even being covered by FOX News !! This could get big !”
      Yep there could be a lot of people in zimmer frames racing to see it.

      • I consider your antipathy towards the elderly to be a character defect as well as illogical. Unless you intend to die young of course.

        • “I consider your antipathy towards the elderly to be a character defect as well as illogical. Unless you intend to die young of course.”
          Children never believe they are going to get old, or even that they are mortal, come to that.

  5. You’re shooting yourself in the foot by linking yourself to such a figure as Sarah Palin.
    Really, nothing could do more damage to countering AGW claims, than politicizing our position by associating ourselves with charlatans.

    • The hatred of Palin will never cease. To many people, not being from the right city or going to the wrong colleges is enough to disqualify anyone.

      • It goes far beyond that. Her performance as Alaska Governor was horrible; she has no technical ability; she is an embarrassment to her State.

      • You have to agree that she’s a shining example of the complete triumph of a closely coordinated and effective character assassination. The MSM decreed that she must be destroyed and they did not, and have not, rested in their work to achieve that end.

      • “You have to agree that she’s a shining example of the complete triumph of a closely coordinated and effective character assassination.”
        A reality TV star who excuses her dirt-bag son by saying its the government’s fault. Yeah, she needs no help on committing character suicide.

    • AIG says:
      You’re shooting yourself in the foot by linking yourself to such a figure as Sarah Palin. Really, nothing could do more damage to countering AGW claims
      That is just another example of a baseless ad hominem attack. You have been manipulated and you don’t even know it. Gov. Palin is not the debater, so she is not countering anything.
      The question is: why the hatred?
      I know why, it’s in the second sentence of my comment here. You’ve been programmed. Simple as that. Now you’re a parrot for the haters. Mission accomplished.

      • AIG doubles down like a problem gambler at a blackjack table. At least gamblers run out of money eventually.

    • AIG
      Why don’t you tell us how you lost both your feet ? Perhaps someone will wash your mouth out with soap next ?

    • Then why are you running scared, with unceasing bile? If you believe it to be true, it will be its own death sentence.

  6. Thank you gentle commenters, for sharing your Palin Derangement Syndrome.
    Says more about your own gullibility than much about the ladies abilities.
    I will be interested in seeing this movie and I am sure the panel,featuring Sarah Palin will generate some entertaining and lasting sound bites.

  7. It is difficult to understand the purpose(s) behind the film – is it to educate, proselytize, to provoke, to entertain or to make a buck?
    Without knowing the objective of the film makers it is impossible to understand the apparently strange marketing approach.

    • What nonsense! It’s like saying you can’t evaluate “A Christmas Carol”, or a Rembrandt or Vermeer without considering the artist’s intent. Hint: for all of them it was to earn a living. Let the work stand on it’s own merits without any faux deconstruction.

      • “It’s like saying you can’t evaluate “A Christmas Carol”, or a Rembrandt or Vermeer without considering the artist’s intent.”
        Well when I took an art class in college (admittedly a long time ago), a part of the course was to “evaluate” one of the local artists paintings hanging on the walls of the art building. The one’s who got “A’s” were of course the one’s that talked to the artists, obviously to see what the artist was trying to present. Art is NOT a universal language that is automatically understood, apparently, even by art students.

      • An artist who has to explain his work isn’t a very good artist. If he or she can’t grasp the cultural context they’re working in that’s their failure, not the audience’s. How do you propose to interview Van Gogh?

  8. How many believers in AGW will attend this screening? None, of course. And those believers are in power all over the world. Skeptics may be winning scientific arguments, but believers are implementing their policies and regulations as if the science had long been settled in their favor.
    “Climate Hustle” will help, but probably no more than “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
    Similarly, in Canada, in 2004, the CBC once broadcasted “Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off.”
    Since then, the CBC has turned into a propaganda machine for AGW, while the Canadian government, after a decade of wimpy passive resistance under the Conservatives, has now become, with the election of Über-Believer Leftist Justin Trudeau, a world leader in the fight against AGW.
    Sad to say, but the Believers are winning. Only the election of openly skeptical wolrd leaders could reverse the trend. Then again, skeptical politicians are afraid to say what they think. First case in point : Stephen Harper, previous Canadian PM, went along with the AGW charade for ten years, in fear of green lobbies, other leaders and the media.

    • “Only the election of openly skeptical world leaders could reverse the trend.”
      Not all elected, but do you believe Xi Jinping, Modi , Shinza Abe and Vladimir Putin act as if they are dedicated believers in the Global warming narrative? How do you think they view the actions of, after all, their competitors in the quest for global political and economic dominance?
      The science is irrelevant , it is a tool for propaganda. The whole issue is, and has always been political and it is that arena where the denouement will be played out.
      AIG @ 11.02am; “Not thinking someone is qualified to advance past town librarian……”
      this applies to most of the 12 POTUS’s of my lifetime awareness – including (especially) the current incumbent – which, I think, makes my point.

    • “Only the election of openly skeptical wolrd leaders could reverse the trend. “
      Like Donald Trump.

      • The British are about to enter into the stone age, and Europe is fast following, no sun, no wind, no energy, no work, no money!

    • Actually Bernard, in Canda, as Trudeau Junior adopts Ontario’s failed policies along with the Alberta NDP and drives the economy deeper into recession, they will spend most of their political capital on “Green Stupidity” and then all the union and ununionized workers and even the CUPE and AUPE workers will abandon them. First they have to fail, and that will hurt all of us. But it may be useful for our grand children’s survival if they are not to freeze in the dark.
      I suspect if Hillary becomes POTUS, the US will go through the same exercise and then aspire to what the BRICS may achieve in the next 50 years.
      But since all projections can be way off, I may be projecting the wrong thoughts. (Not predicting anything here of course.)/sarc off

  9. I echo the very same concern – Sarah Palin? – to associate the film launch with her is very bad PR – sorry to say, but it just is.

  10. I don’t hate Palin, but her response to the simple question “what do you read?” in an interview was truly cringeworthy. She said, “everything”, but what she meant was nothing as the rest of the conversation revealed when she couldn’t name any specific newspapers, magazines, or other things that she read. She was obviously unprepared in any way to be VP let alone President. I would like my President to be an information sponge and a massive consumer of information from dozens of sources. That isn’t Palin. Having her associated with this effort will, for a great number of people, mean that they will simply skip over the whole thing, because she has no credibility.

      • Like Obama? Haha that’s very funny. You don’t have to like Obama and clearly many here don’t, but Palin and Obama are at very different ends of the political competence scale. When he speaks he at least sounds authoritative. When she does…. well let’s just say, it’s usually best she didn’t.

        • Simon: “When he speaks he at least sounds authoritative.”
          Like when he gets the number of States in the Union wrong?
          Or signs the visitors’ book at Westminster Abbey and doesn’t even know what year it is?

      • Simon, “When he speaks he at least sounds authoritative”.
        And that’s the best he can do. Can not act authoritatively except around a golf course.

    • This again? That’s the best you can do? She wasn’t even running for president. Now, what I’m going to do is take that one flub of yours and beat you over the head with it for the next 10 years, demonstrating how you are unprepared for answering questions on climate science or optics. Yes, if I was serious, I’d be a serious douche and a shallow analyzer, just like you.
      Your ignorance is amazing. Could it possibly be that she was told that it would be a light interview? That McCain set her up (his people disliked her quite a bit, because they resented needing someone more conservative than him)? That she was too trusting? Occam’s razor anyone? Of course not – we will say she was stupid, to shore up our own insecurities about our intelligence.
      Give me a break.
      Palin is now a sellout, but she wasn’t back then. Only her endorsement of Trump and her subsequent behavior has demonstrated that she is no longer who she once was.

      • Katie Couric did a 3 hour extended interview with Palin with no limitations or rules, and masterfully cut it into a 3 day perfect hit piece. Have you been interviewed on TV? I have. Shocking to see the end result let me tell you.

      • FYI
        SAT Scores:
        Al Gore 1035
        J. Kerry 1195
        GW Bush 1206 and the only president to earn an MBA

  11. Palin? Really? Who is in charge of the optics for this goatrope?
    Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, she is one of the most divisive political figures on the landscape. Why on earth would anyone want to tie the climate movie to Palin? How will that possibly help?
    I gotta say, this gaffe is one of the most foolish mistakes I’ve seen from the skeptical side of the aisle. Palin? Are the folks running this show totally blind to the optics of Sarah Palin’s involvement? Get Monckton for the panel, get Morano, get the freakin’ janitor for all I care … but Palin????
    Don’t get me wrong here. I don’t hate Sarah Palin, I’m just saying, who does she bring to the party? There is little upside, the only people she is likely to convince are probably already convinced, and there is a huge downside in that many people will simply point and laugh when her name is mentioned.
    Dang … these guys putting on the movie desperately need political minders. They’ve just done incalculable damage to the credibility of the movie.

    • “Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, she is one of the most divisive political figures on the landscape. Why on earth would anyone want to tie the climate movie to Palin? How will that possibly help?”
      Change those words thusly:
      “Regardless of whether it is deserved or not, he is one of the most divisive political figures on the landscape. Why on earth would anyone want to tie the climate movie to Al Gore? How will that possibly help?”
      and you are describing one of the things that struck me about “An Inconvenient Truth”.
      Evidentially, the skeptics didn’t learn anything from the past.

    • “Dang … these guys putting on the movie desperately need political minders. They’ve just done incalculable damage to the credibility of the movie.”
      I agree with you, but given the name of the movie, don’t you think these people weren’t really going for “credibility” in the first place.

    • Dang … these guys putting on the movie desperately need political minders. They’ve just done incalculable damage to the credibility of the movie.

      Actually… the plan to divert attention away from the inexplicable failure to offer up the documentary on DVD to any who would desire to see it, by triggering a tumescent pendulous tangent on Sara Palin… is proceeding exactly as planned.
      [evil laughter]

  12. I agree. If you want to reach moderates leaning right or left, Sarah Palin is going to tune out that group. The left is hopelessly lost and will blame fossil fuels regardless of hot or cold, but the middle ground is where this message needs to go. Sarah Palin is going to make a lot of people think this is some wacky right wing conspiracy theory just like I don’t listen to anything Bernie has to say.

    • Major: You have forgotten about the large group of people who are not as bright as you are – you know – all those thousands of people who are attracted to a name of any sort – like someone who posts nude pictures of herself on Twitter and gets millions of followers. What makes you think that those masses don’t see Palin as one of them? Another woman abused by the Actors Guild and fat cat rich politicians that don’t represent them, don’t know what a snow machine is and couldn’t kill a moose with a rifle if the moose was holding it up for them and squeezing the trigger. You know – the folks that think eggs come from Tofu and milk comes from cartons from the factory down the street.
      As a Canuk, I couldn’t care less about Palin in a US political context. However, as a person who grew up on the land eating what I could catch or grow, I have a great appreciation for people like Palin. I still live 45 km from the nearest small centre and if civilization as we know it disappears tomorrow, my family and I will survive. So will Palin. She may have said some things people think are stupid, but she is a survivor and I respect her for that.

  13. The desire for an authority to justify ones world view seems to dominate the mindset of those suffering P.D.S.a product sold to you by the Guild of Parasites,media wing 2008.
    Palin Derangement Syndrome, as I stated above demonstrates more about the sufferer than the object of this derangement.
    To buy into and repeat all the media slander and smear heaped upon the woman, suggests to me a lack of context, curiosity and critical thinking.
    Is this the result of a lifetime of “laugh track” TV and the ever shrinking attention span of society?
    If guilt by association is your thing, well go for it. However it is a mighty broad brush.
    Just an observation here, CAGW has been able to be sold to policy makers and large sections of the general public, through appeal to authority.
    Exactly the same foolishness demonstrated by accepting the P.D.S package.

    • John, please note my objection to Palin being on the panel. It has NOTHING to do with Palin, it is purely about how people perceive Palin. Regardless of her abilities or credentials, she is a hugely divisive political figure … why would anyone want to tie their movie about climate science to such a polarizing person? She can add nothing to the science, and regarding the optics and the politics, she’s huge downside with almost no upside …

      • So we should exclude anyone that the media has made a point of destroying???
        If that’s going to be our standard then we should just surrender now.

      • Well said, I feel, Mark. It seems many will believe anything the mass media echo chamber declares/insinuates, including that those they’ve attack are “too divisive” . . No evidence required; The TV talking heads need only roll their eyes ; )

      • Absolutely spot on MarkW, the only people left unbloodied at this point are the Warmists and their political supporters. And guess how much support you can expect from them? Pull up your big girl panties and hug your friends, take support where offered. If you find someone that isn’t thrashed already, they will be a week after it hits the news.

      • “So we[?] should exclude anyone…?”
        I don’t see any suggestion Sarah Palin should be excluded, only that it’s a bad idea have her “headline” a serious exposé of scientific malfeasance.
        Four “participants” in this supposed documentary debut: Two politicians, a pundit, and an ex-state climatologist. It sounds like a comedy.

      • Thanks Willis, exactly why she is on the panel.
        As a provocation to the easily led.The attention she attracts is publicity for a film the media will mostly ignore and carefully avoid mentioning.
        The “optics” are a product you can buy or not.
        If we accept that logic, that any who the media have successfully orchestrated a campaign of hate against, are unsuitable for public theatre and presentations, then the activists have already won.
        So who decides ?
        The media party of north America?
        The guild of Parasites?
        Or our lying eyes?
        The Campaign against Sarah Palin was a spectacular success, the media here in Canada duplicated that same MO to create Harper Derangement Syndrome, result we have a preschooler as our new Prime Minister, who believes in UN CAGW.
        However the success of these Orwellian Moments of hate, says more about those of us who buy into it.
        Such outrageous slanders can not go unchallenged,or soon there will be none who dare speak.
        Cause of the optics.
        Or to quote Monty Python”We are all individuals here”.

    • “Is this the result of a lifetime of “laugh track” TV and the ever shrinking attention span of society?”
      You know she’s a reality TV star, right? Now tell us more about “critical thinking”, in the same sentence as Sarah Palin. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the two used together. This is indeed a first.

      • Thats the best “entertainment “you can provide?
        So Reality TV show is the sum of Mrs Palin’s life experience?
        You oh nameless one, who exhibits many traits of the internet troll, are a fine example of that lack of critical thinking of which I wrote.
        Do you have any opinions of your own?
        Or just twitter rehash?
        Now I am feeding the troll, but really. Empty media talking points, from an anonymous AIG?

      • Why do you suppose “reality TV” is such a huge success? It’s because of ratings and that means that a very large number of citizens watch that tripe. Sadly, a large number of people are simply too uneducated to understand the science involved and will respond with their “gut” feelings, so a personality from a reality show will have far greater influence on what they think about CAGW than the evidence presented.

  14. The same media that promotes global warming, also cannot wait to denigrate Palin. These are the same people who believe in political correctness, which is a code word for marxism dressed up as socialism. They believe only the state can teach you manners and courtesy. WIthout PC, you are all redneck blobs in their very very vain opinion.
    So why distract yourselves from the effect of Climate Hustle over one person attending?
    Climate Hustle might do in reverse what Gore’s charade did in early 2000’s. Even though Americans rate the sloth like advance of Climate Catastrophe as very low in priority, you have AGs deciding it is a bigger problem than drugs and crime. Such out of touch ninnies have probably never heard an alternative point of view.
    So you should be out advancing scepticism, rather than arguing over Palin.

    • Global warming is just one battle in a much larger war.
      That war being the fight against totalitarianism.
      So many people are willing to lose the larger war in order to win this one battle.

    • “The same media that promotes global warming, also cannot wait to denigrate Palin. These are the same people who believe in political correctness, which is a code word for marxism dressed up as socialism.”
      Saying someone is not qualified, is “marxism”? Interesting insight there.
      Denigrate Palin? The reality TV star who has cameras following her everywhere?

      • AIG
        I bet when you come out from under your umbrella you are so ugly with that big mouth and small brain case, yes, in your house all the mirrors are turned to the wall.

  15. I don’t want to, and won’t buy tickets to see “Climate Hustle” anywhere. What I want, and the only way I will see it is to purchase the DVD. At this time it apparently isn’t being offered to buy. 🙁

  16. Palin is to the AGW skeptics what Gore is to the climate alarmists. At least the climate alarmists have the sense to disassociate themselves from Gore.

  17. I just had a thought, now when we say “I’ll get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.” we really mean get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show. As for Roy, Marc Morano no doubt will sell DVDs once the event showing is over. He will probably make more money that way. But a theater release, no matter how limited, makes a bigger splash. Besides ‘direct to disc’ has an unsavory sound to media types. A lot of climate realism documentaries were released that way, and now who can name them?

  18. vukcevic,
    I can see nothing but a big white space where I bet you posted a graphic. I am trying to discover what I have done to this hopeless computer to cause that. Can you please tell me what sort of graphic you posted? Thanks.

    • It is not graphic, it’s you tube link to talk given by a Nobel laureate ( Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited ), just google the bracketed bit.

    • YouTube has apparently, in the last few days, starting blocking content to browsers with ad/tracking blockers. If you want to see if this is your problem, surf directly over to YouTube, and see if the page displays normally, or is a hacked up mess.
      I use Ghostery, and have the same issue. To resolve:
      Ghostery->View All Trackers->Customer Interaction->YouTube {allow}
      (and reload the page)
      Hope this helps, all.

  19. I completely agree with everyone else who has made a similar point regarding Sarah Palin’s presence. She completely delegitimizes this entire endeavor. Forget about her politics, I don’t even respect her ability to put a coherent sentence together. All an alarmist has to do is point to her tenuous association with this film to completely discredit it in the eyes of many people.

  20. Having Palin there will lead to ridicule from the mainstream media. Bad choice. Film has soo much promise to change opinions but now with Palin there, not going to happen.

    • Eddy,
      “Having Palin there will lead to ridicule from the mainstream media.”
      That’s a good thing . . these days, it seems to me . . And it’s actually the corporate mass media which is the clothes-less Emperor that we must expose/depose, if we are to survive the “collectivist” assault on Western Civilization.
      “Film has soo much promise to change opinions . . ”
      Why? What is the “draw” of a film that contradicts the ideas in the minds of those who have fallen prey to the mass media propaganda . . regarding an issue most people don;t even see as important? It seems to me the likelihood of getting many people to attend the showings goes up dramatically if there is controversial figure headlining this affair.

      • John Knight
        Trump has had Billions of $ of free publicity, ( go Donald ) now to get the same affect who should we use for this film ? Abnessa Hawkwood Ah who ? Only on this site Palin has got the message to the good guys and our idiots, wonderful publicity, go Palin !

  21. The few interviews with Palin I’ve seen were, to put it mildly, buttock-clenchingly embarrassing. She seems like a nice lady and everything and I just wanted the horrible carnage to stop on humanitarian grounds. She came across as being as politically astute as you might expect your local twenty year old hairdresser to be – not to disparage hairdressers.
    Whether rightly or wrongly she is viewed in many parts of the world as the absolute final word in politically inappropriate jokes and I cannot even imagine a better example of an own goal than to associate her name with what is to be promoted – along with the light-hearted aspects – as a serious scientific standpoint.
    Couldn’t have been more surprised if someone had put Kim Jong-un forward as a spokesperson for Amnesty International.

  22. The MSM and Alarmist Kool Ade Guzzler crowd can ad hom and PC to their heart’s content, as is their wont. But we don’t have to join them. I’ll wait to see what SP has to say, before passing judgement.

  23. I have to admit I cringed when I saw Sarah Palin as the lead participant for the documentary.
    Then again, maybe WUWT has hardened my distrust of those who proclaim knowledge.

  24. Why make a film that is intended to present an opinion and then be sure your intended audience dismisses it by having it hosted by someone they find laughable?
    Why give people such easy reasons to dismiss you? And if the organizers don’t see this it shows incredibly poor judgement. Regardless of Palin’s merits or demerits, her presences dooms their project. Many can wish that wasn’t the case but it is true regardless of their wishes. Another example of how in a politicized subject, too many are really clueless about what the majority of their opposition really think.

    • Dave,
      “Why make a film that is intended to present an opinion and then be sure your intended audience dismisses it by having it hosted by someone they find laughable?”
      Who do you do think is the “intended audience”?
      ” Another example of how in a politicized subject, too many are really clueless about what the majority of their opposition really think.”
      Apparently the answer to my question is the majority of those who subscribe to/assume the validity of the CAGW hypothesis . . and you are, for reasons I cannot imagine, thinking a lot of them were actually going to pay attention to this premier/film, if Ms Palin was not involved . . Which is utterly contra logical to me . .
      Many more of them might, because of her involvement, it seems to me. (But those are not the CAGW skeptic’s opponents, I don’t believe. That would be con artists hawking it, as I see the world.)

  25. Giver her a chance, see how she goes at the screening. She is a courageous woman who has taken on the Establishment. The tide is turning, ordinary people are fighting back against the Establishment. Palin is a heroine.

  26. ..Wow, seems like there are a lot of liberals here today….And Sarah Palin seems to scare the SHlT out of all of them !! I wonder why ?

    • Palin doesn’t scare them in any way. They are dissapointed that a skeptic film WILL be dismissed because of her association with it. Is that unfair? Perhaps. But everyone here who is bemoaning her understands that this film isn’t about Palin but others will make it about her. Defending her merits simply misses the point and shows how little you understand the minds of those you are trying to convince regarding climate. The volume of Palin detractors here is not a barometer of liberals on wuwt but proof she is a derisive choice.

      • ..Well they had to be fair and balance out the fact that Bill Nye will also be there !..Level the playing field, so to speak ! LOL

      • daviditron,
        “Defending her merits simply misses the point and shows how little you understand the minds of those you are trying to convince regarding climate. ”
        They weren’t going to pay any attentions at all to this film, it seems most likely to me, and the promoters/makers realized that, so they did something that might change the script, so to speak. I’d just love to hear you idea for how to get those folks you mentioned interested . . Mr. Expert ; )

    • Word of advice: peak your head out of your Trump twitter feed once in a while.
      I see no one here that is even a “liberal”, or making any such points. I’m not a “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination.
      The comments above about “marxism”, “western civilization”, “political correctness” and conspiracy theories is actually evidence that we’ve got a lot of Trumpkins here, not “liberals”. Sarah Palin is not liked by the majority of conservatives, and certainly by the vast majority of moderates.
      But what the hell does this have to do with AGW? Nothing. And that’s the problem: you’re turning this into a political point, and associating it with the most divisive and unpleasant political figures. The fact that you like the, has no bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people don’t.

      • …” Sarah Palin is not liked by the majority of conservatives ” ? I’m a Conservative, I have no love or interest in Palin, but I am definitely NOT in the majority of Conservative views on Palin..Either you have no understanding of Conservative values or you are just a troll digging for worms ! Also, I do not support Trump or look / read or play at Twitter..Twitter is for Twits…like you !

  27. From the other side of the Atlantic… As far as I can see what is going on in the US (most I learn is here…) ex-governor Palin is from the ultra-right side of the Republicans and one of the prominent members of the Tea Party.
    If the aim is to convince the middle class of people who are slightly right or left of the middle, it is an as bad choice as can be: You can only convince those who are already convinced, not the target audience you want to convince, because they just unhook by the name Palin alone.
    That has little to do with how she performs in the media, everything for what she stands for, but her performance (manipulated or not) doesn’t help either.
    Simply look at the reactions here: half the already convinced on this blog find it a bad choice, what would that give for people that still should be convinced? The notorious 97%?

    • Look at reactions to reactions. Considering Palin a bad choice as program headliner is “hatred.” Take care you don’t threaten the “safe space” of the delicate denizens who jealously guard the skeptisphere.

      • clipe,
        I know, everybody in the States who is “left” of the middle is assumed to be ultra-left.
        Take e.g. Obamacare: I was looking with astonishment to all the reactions about even the smallest attempt to start something that would perform a minimum affordable healthcare for many millions. Something that in Europe is just normal for everybody, including people without job. Not in the US, where people who loose their job loose everything: their insurance, their house,… Defending Obamacare seems to be already ultra-left for many on this blog…
        Maybe that is one of the drawbacks of the (mainly) two-party system, inherited from the UK: minorities don’t have much chance to be heard. Here that is less of a problem: even (real) communists have their (small) number of representatives in parliament. On the other side, votes split over 5-6 parties need a lot of time and balancing to form a government, sometimes much too long…

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen April 1, 2016 at 1:16 am

        I know, everybody in the States who is “left” of the middle is assumed to be ultra-left.
        Take e.g. Obamacare: I was looking with astonishment to all the reactions about even the smallest attempt to start something that would perform a minimum affordable healthcare for many millions.

        Ferdinand, while I agree with your first statement, Obamacare is a very poor example of your point. With Obamacare, we have all of the drawbacks of a single-payer (European) system, with none of the benefits. As I told my brother when the game started, “You watch! We’re gonna get worse service or at best the same service at a higher cost!”
        And guess what? That is exactly what we got, plus endless political wrangles and the disgusting sight of a President trying to stave off disaster by illegally carving executive exemptions out of Obamacare for his friends and supporters and union members. Oh, and a farrago at the Supreme Court where it was decided that Obamacare was tax even though it was not passed as a tax …
        And after all of that, the Europeans still don’t seem to get it, so let me spell it out.
        Instead, we got a crappy hybrid system of private insurance that is MORE EXPENSIVE than the old system, and provides pathetic care with high, often un-payable deductibles unaffordable by the poor.
        And you are astonished that people like myself object to that? Say what? Only a fool, or perhaps someone from Europe who thinks we got something out of the deal, would support that kind of madness … but that doesn’t make the opponents right-wingers. I don’t think the Obamacare supporters are ultra-left, I think they are simply ultra-credulous, but neither side of the aisle has an exclusive on that …
        PS—Who would I consider ultra-left? Umm … well, our resident socialist “useful idiot” Bernie Sanders comes to mind …

      • Thanks Willis for the update,
        Hadn’t followed Obamacare that close, was thinking that it was a first step to the (much cheaper than in the US) health care system we have in most countries of Europe, where everybody pays in ratio to his/hers income and receives more or less the same healthcare, no matter your income or (lack of) employment (except if you like to pay a lot extra for extra personal care).

    • I would suggest anyone on the blog is likely in an elitist group – in the most polite and PC way it can be said. The regular working smucks that Palin would appeal to, doesn’t have time to post here. They are too busy working to try to pay the bills. It’s only the well paid, the funded and the retired that can come her to get their climate fix. The people here are not the “Average” – so maybe we aren’t properly qualified to comment.
      Or are you inferring Alaskans as a group are Neanderthalithic to have made her Governor.
      Apologies. Going skiing in the morning so happy April 1, 2016. (seriously)

      • Wayne,
        Our youngest daughter lived in Alaska (Girdwood/Anchorage), for four years, working as helicopter pilot on the North Slope. Was there a few times, including a long trip with a camper over Alaska and Yukon.
        I suppose that Palin was a good choice at the time, because she cleaned the Republican Party of excesses and stood behind the main source of welfare there: oil (and gas). But that has nothing to do with her performance as promoter of this film aimed to a quite different public than her voters, a public that doesn’t endorse her political ideas and certainly doesn’t think that her knowledge of the subject is adequate… The latter is the main point: take Lord Monckton is also quite right in the UK political spectrum, but he knows where he is talking about and is adored – of feared – by friend and enemy. Palin isn’t that at all.

      • Or are you inferring Alaskans as a group are Neanderthalithic to have made her Governor.
        You must think every political leader in the US has been elected with deserved appeal. Or would you hold that group Y was Neanderthalic when they voted in leader X?
        See how your logic works there? Or maybe Alaskans are special?

  28. Has anyone stopped to consider that people (for or against) will watch this film because of Palin’s involvement?

  29. Well, 136 comments so far, most dealing with Sarah Palin. I for one have the highest regard for her. And I understand her completely. The Palinisms are in my opinion charming and instructive. She has been proven right time and time again.
    Even Obama honored Sarah Palin renaming Mount McKinley to Denali.
    Obama the clueless renamed mount McKinley.
    To honor the “High One” its name is Denali.
    Good old Secret Service with humor sublime
    used that as her code name when she ran last time.
    NOTE: “Denali” was the name assigned to Gov. Sarah Palin by the United States Secret Service during the 2008 campaign. Her husband’s code name, per Secret Service, was “Driller.”
    Barack Hussein Obama on the other hand was given the code name “Renegade”.
    Full definition of renegade:
    1: a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
    2: an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior
    Soo – in full accordance with his cluelessness Obama renamed the mountain after his possible successor!
    Some fantastic pictures from Alaska in Sarah Palin’s op-ed:

    • As usual, the attacks argainst Gov. Palin are all ad hominem logical fallacies. So what would folks suggest? Roll over and do it in a way that won’t offend the sensitive alarmist snowflakes?
      There was a recent discussion here about how skeptics might have lost the debate — not on scientific evidence, but because of politics. It seems that skeptics can’t win, no matter what.
      Yes, Palin is political. So is Algore. But both of them attract eyeballs, and at least some of those viewers will watch out of curiosity. It’s all good publicity. And since it’s (at least partly; maybe 97%) politics, then it can cut both ways. The CAGW/political argument can be turned against the alarmist crowd, if done correctly.
      So at this point, if I may, here are…
      The Five Rules of Propaganda
      by Norman Davies
      1. Simplification: reducing all data to a single confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
      The alarmist crowd refuses to ever admit that anything good could possibly come from the rise in CO2 — their central argument. But as it turns out, CO2 is cokmpletely harmless, and it is greening the planet. So the ‘good or bad’ argument loses effectiveness as it becomes a cost/benefit discussion.
      2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
      This can be accomplished easily; Algore’s numerous seaside mansions. And the fact that all the hostility is being directed at personalities, for the simple reason that the alarmist side has lost the science debate. Such as the fact that the past century has been the most benign century in the entire temperature record. And the fact that food costs are being held down by harmless, beneficial CO2. And the enormous mountain of taxpayer grant loot being shoveled into the pockets of self-admitted climate charlatans… the arguments are all there.
      3. Transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
      Ditto to #2 above. In science there are constant arguments, and every scientist knows you can never get unanimous agreement — unless it’s bought and paid for by the $1 billion in annual grants to “study climate change”.
      4. Unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
      In short, the Appeal to Authority fallacy, which is falsified by the undeniable fact that not one of the scary, alarming predictions made over the past several decades have ever come true. They were all wrong. In science, when that happens the hypothesis must be junked.
      5. Orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
      “Runaway global warming” and “climate catastrophe” have morphed into “climate change” — a meaningless Orwellian term that can mean anything. Or nothing. The talking points are all orchestrated, and reported by a tame media.
      If this is politics, then let’s bring a gun to their knife fight. Tell viewers:
      a) what you’re going to tell them. Then:
      b) tell them. Then:
      c) tell them what you’ve told them.
      Simple rhetoric.
      The enemy is coming out of their castle! They were safe there. But now they feel they have to come out and engage.
      Handled right, they can be defeated, or at least suffer a major setback. The hand-wringing over Sarah Palin won’t get skeptics anywhere. But good strategy and tactics will.

      • db,
        The main tone of the skeptics here is that using Palin as help is bad propaganda for this film. As good as the help of Al Gore for the other side is more and more bad propaganda.
        I know, bad propaganda is better than no propaganda, but in this case it undermines the fundament of the film itself. Better fly over Lord Monckton, if you need some firework…

    • You are absolutely right. The hate for Sarah Palin is unprecedented.
      As for renaming Mount mcKinley I should have said: back to Denali. My bad.
      By the way Denali means “The High One”. That is what native Alaskans always called it.

  30. To all of us who are a bit disturbed at the association of this issue with political whack-jobs, just be thankful they didn’t go with Alex Jones or Ron Paul on this one. I’m guessing they tries, but settled on Palin due to scheduling conflicts.
    Yes yes I know, “establishment, MSM, marxism”. Save it Trumpkins.

  31. I’m from the UK.
    Rightly or wrongly, Palin is seen as a figure of fun over here in Europe. It may be completely unfair, but the European media have very successfully painted her as a know-nothing hick from the Alaskan backwoods.
    VERY bad move to link her with the film. The alarmists will have a field day.

    • “Rightly or wrongly, Palin is seen as a figure of fun over here in Europe.”
      Only by the “Liberals” and those brainwashed by the Left-wing mainstream media.

      • Maybe Sarah Palin is bait to trap the alarmist crowd. Suppose they criticize the movie by attacking Palin.
        Mark Morano (or whoever) points out that if the alarmists had a case, they’d use it and attack the movie. No case? They attack Palin.
        It could be a clever move; one that would embarrass any news-critter that tried the Palin ploy to discredit the movie, in an interview of Morano or David Legates, or any of the CFACT people.

      • Aha! The ‘ol bait and switch? Waste their time dealing with irrelevancies?
        It could well be…

    • “It may be completely unfair, but the European media have very successfully painted her as a know-nothing hick from the Alaskan backwoods.”
      Peace be upon them ; )

      • I’m a know nothing hick from the backwoods of Alberta and British Columbia but somehow along with animal husbandry, I got an engineering degree in Water and Pollution and a senior management position is Canada’s last large employee owned consulting engineering firm (I am long since retired but the firm continues to prosper and grow). Amazing what a few kids off the farm can do.

    • And in doing so, they will fall for the bait.
      Generating media attention for this film,which it would otherwise never get from the alarmist media.
      Encourage them to “have a field day” as own goals usually occur while they are thus engaged.

    • Wasilla is a suburb of Anchorage, a major port city. Palin is no backwoods hick. She is politically savvy enough to have successfully governed Alaska after having won a primary against the incumbent and beating a better-financed Democrat. She ran on a “clean government” platform promising improvements in education, public safety, and transportation. She had high approval ratings throughout her governorship.
      PolitiFact, notoriously generous to Democrats, rates a greater percentage of Palin’s statements “True” (23%) than they do Obama’s (21%).
      The misogynist media ridicules women who obtain positions of power without playing the female as victim role. High-cheekboned “Cherokee” Elizabeth Warren gets a pass while Palin’s statements get warped into comedy fodder.

    • david smith —
      Figure of fun? Now that is exactly how most American view your string of recent prime ministers. Their incompetence is truly effortless. That is indicative of long practice.
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Sarah Palin, (9th Governor of Alaska)
      Yes, the europian media constructed a problem with her.
      Never heard a complaint from Alaska – so what?

    • Sarah Palin, (9th Governor of Alaska)
      Yes, the european media constructed a problem with her.
      Never heard a complaint from Alaska – so what.

      • The European media constructed a problem with her? Outside of Breitbart and Drudge, she’s universally disliked by most Americans.
        Again, some of you seem to confuse your echo chambers with reality.

      • Johann,
        Never heard of “Troopergate”? Right or wrong, both political parties of Alaska declared that Palin had abused here power as Governor to fire her former brother in law from the Alaskan Troopers. Later she was excused of wrongdoing by a self-appointed “Alaska Personnel Board”…

    • “Rightly or wrongly, Palin is seen as a figure of fun over here in Europe. It may be completely unfair, but the European media have very successfully painted her as a know-nothing hick from the Alaskan backwoods.
      VERY bad move to link her with the film. The alarmists will have a field day.”
      She’s viewed the same way by 90% of Americans too. Unfortunately, they have decided to hang themselves with the 10% extremist right-wing crowd.
      But it appears so many of the comenters here live in such an echo chamber that they think that being turned off by Sarah Palin= “George Soros sponsored liberal”.
      But they think they are better than the AGW crowd?

  32. Sarah Palin is one of the few pols with the been to call
    Agw bull. So cut her some slack. Plus no koolaid drinking
    Alarmist would be seen within 100’of film, so who gives a shit who.s in it. Imo she’s earned the right by calling agw for the total crock of shi t it is.

  33. Amazing.
    A blog about a documentary questioning the science between CAGW has turned into a totally misogynistic hatefest criticising Sarah Palin, mostly based on a campaign in the MSM and a few sketches by a third rate comedienne, entirely ignoring her successes as the Governor of Alaska.

    • ..Sad but true !! Anytime her name is mentioned in a news article, the trolls come out in swarms !

      • Marcus +100
        and the trolls don’t read the comments after they post, obviously by the way they keep ” the stupid “

  34. Seems there is a observation lurking here somewhere.
    Appeals to authority work.
    Orchestrated slander by media works.
    Few people bother to look beyond the picture provided.
    How many ask the age old question;”What are they selling”?
    The herd is easily manipulated.
    An effective counter to such propaganda, at the mob level, would be a useful tool to counter this CAGW mass hysteria.
    However the evidence seems to indicate ,we go mad in crowds and return to sanity individually.
    We have been provided ample evidence of the medias methods of operation, in their coverage of CAGW.
    In their slobbering love affair with Obama.
    Yet we shall trust them to inform us about conservative public figures?
    Who you gonna believe?
    Me or your lying eyes?

  35. If I were debating, then EVERY TIME Governor Palin’s name was mentioned, I would respond:
    Of course you would attack an individual, and avoid trying to debate scientific facts. Because character assassination is all you have. So I will give you the uncomfortable facts you always avoid:
    • Not one of your scary, alarming predictions have ever come true. Not one!
    • Despite the rise in CO2 — by only one part in 10,000, over a century — global warming has not accelerated. In fact, it has been stopped for almost twenty years.
    • The planet is measurably GREENING as a direct result of the added beneficial and harmless CO2 — which is still just a tiny trace gas and an airborne fertilizer that builds the sugars, starches, and cellulose in our agricultural crops..
    And so on. Skeptics have the facts. So whenever they get off the track of science, point it out, and explain exactly why they’re doing it: because they don’t have the facts they always claimed they had.

    • DB
      ““Of course you would attack an individual, and avoid trying to debate scientific facts. Because character assassination is all you have.”
      Yea but come on …. she makes it so easy. Probably too much so that everyone had become bored, because there was no challenge any more. Till…. she showed up championing Chump.

    • Simon sez:
      she makes it so easy.”.
      Simon. you despicable worm. You attack a lady — the elected Governor of a major U.S. State — with your underhanded ad homenem attacks — and without a shred of credible evidence!
      Could you be any more despicable? Really? Could you??
      Get lost,you hateful, lowlife troll.
      You are the chump, Simon. Go away.

      • dbstealey
        Mmmm??? So you are suggesting I should go easy on Palin because she was an elected politician? Really? Do others here play by the same rules? If so, why do come down so heavily on Gore? No I’m sorry that is one of the sillier things you have said. Politicians are fare game, particularly when tax payers are funding their salaries.
        Second point. You accuse me of “ad hominem attacks.” I’d like to respectfully point out that I think you may be a little mixed up on the definition. You see I criticised Palin as a politician who did not cut it. Her downfall was littered with saying the wrong thing as the wrong time. That is a fact. I think history pretty much agrees with me as do many commenters here. You on the other hand launched into a classical (by definition) “ad hominem attacks” on me. “you despicable worm. Get lost,you hateful, lowlife troll.” You see where I’m going here.
        I’m wondering whether you see the irony in all this? I’m sure others do.

        • Simon sez:
          I’m wondering whether you see the irony in all this? I’m sure others do.
          So now Simon speaks for ‘others’.
          Simon, your comments are a mixture of misrepresentation, deflection, ad homs, hatred of skeptics because you disagree with them (and worse, because skeptics are right), and scientific ignorance. You never stick to scientific facts, or evidence, or measurements, or observations, for the simple reason that if you did, you would have no credible arguments.
          Your arguments come down to nothing more than your personal opinions and prejudices. Like most uneducated alarmists, you made up your mind early on, based on something you were told, but which turned out to be wrong. Like a lot of folks, once you took a position you could not back down. A mile of glacier ice could once again cover Chicago, and you would still be spouting ‘reasons’ why it’s caused by man-made global warming.
          Science isn’t your thing, Simon. You would be better off at a religious blog. At least there you could fall back on faith. But here, facts demolish your anti-science arguments.

      • Simon: I most respectfully ask, What do you mean when you wrote, “saying the wrong thing as the wrong time?” What did she say? I’m trying to follow here.

        • So you cannot name something you heard, rather some website says she said something dumb. I can see why you get attacked. First, the major thing I’ve heard other people attack her for is the claim she said she can see Russian from her house. Which, is something she never said. People were confused by a skit on Saturday Night Live. I understand about her boistorous nature, but I am asking if you can think of anything “dumb that she said” and you cannot give me something. That’s just terrible.

      • Ok here’s one. A classic.
        “”But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.” –Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck’s radio show, Nov. 24, 2010″

        • OK – you nailed it. Yes, as if only a damned fool could make that kind of mistake. But, not Obama, with “My Muslim Faith” Or “…Intercontinental railroad”
          Do I need the sarc’ tag?

      • Mario
        You seem to have gone quiet. Was that not dumb enough? How about when she thought Africa was a country not a continent?

        • Dude, Simon, I am working and checking emails. You’re again fooled by another Hoax. Just spend a minute trying to verify the fodder that fills your head before you again post something else as that many would say is dumb. Find me the video where Sarah Palin said she thinks African is a county. She never said she could see Russia from her house, either.
          If you cannot think of anything other than manufactured stories, maybe you should be made to have gone quiet. It takes intelligence to not allow others to implant things their heads. Use some intelligence.

        • PS – Simon, now that you realize that you cannot find a single thing Sarah Palin said that is dumb, even though the Internet is fool of people saying otherwise, are you ready to admit that you have been, dare I say, “A useful idiot”? I’m just asking. Don’t you want to know what you’re talking about?

      • @ Simon — Regardless of whether your point carries about Palin’s fitness for the film promotion, Mario, the consummate gentleman, did himself proud by coming to her defense, for the criticism was, even if merited, overly harsh and distorted.
        Mario is RIGHT, far above — she never said that she could see Russia from her house, rather, that she could (and you CAN) see it from Alaska.
        Time for some balance:
        The STUPIDEST president the U.S. has EVER had or ever possibly could have
        (Note: cunning is not intelligence)

        “… uh…. I’ve been to 57 states, one more to go… “

      • ” – Simon, now that you realize that you cannot find a single thing Sarah Palin said that is dumb”
        Do you think that North Korea is an ally? Oh dear. I see why you think Palin is OK.

      • Simon: You (unintentionally, perhaps? heh) mischaracterized Mario’s response (here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/31/climate-hustle-goes-to-washington-skeptical-film-to-premiere-on-capitol-hill-riveting-panel-with-gov-sarah-palin-and-other-guests/comment-page-1/#comment-2180752 ) v. a v. N. Korea. He acknowledged her statement was incorrect, that is, that N. Korea is not a U.S. ally, while also characterizing it as a simple slip of the tongue mistake by Palin. That is:
        1. Mario KNOWS N. Korea is not an ally and nothing in his answer would lead an intelligent reader to think that he thought otherwise; and
        2. he gave Ms. Palin the benefit of the doubt.
        Which I will give you. You simply read Mario’s post in a hurry and missed its meaning…
        aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I’m talking to a troll!!!

      • Janice
        He then said
        “PS – Simon, now that you realize that you cannot find a single thing Sarah Palin said that is dumb”
        I would say the North Korea comment is a single thing……

        • Then you are too dumb to understand the difference between getting mixed up and tonigue tied and being dumb. You should look up what dumb means. Your entire argument, is based on this North vs South thing, yet you were so sure there was gobs and gobs of evidence.

        • Simon,
          That’s the best you can do: frantically searching until you found something she said when she was obviously thinking ‘South Korea’. She said ‘North’ instead. So, by your same standard, what’s your opinion about Obama’s intelligence, when he stated that there are 57 states? Or are you cherry-picking your factoids? It’s very hard to believe that was a simple mistake like Palin’s. Maybe not to you, but you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
          Sarah Palin was elected Governor in a very tough election battle. Only an idiot would believe that someone stupid would be able to do that. And I say that as someone elected to statewide office. NO ONE wins a big election if they’re stupid. Only the most dense would beleive the talking points that demonize a woman — talking points by the same people who claim Republicans are anti-woman (and IANAR).
          Simon, you’re in so far over your head here that every comment you make confirms how truly clueless you are. You’re in the lowest cohort of the half of the population that has a below average IQ.
          You would do better with your intellectual equals over at hotwhopper. There’s no doubt you’re a masochist, because you’re getting thrashed here, but you keep coming back for more punishment.

      • Oh, brother, Simon. And I even spelled it out for you in my comment, lol. MARIO GAVE PALIN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT — that she made a slip of the tongue mistake, i.e., meaning “South,” but saying, “North.” This was reasonable on Mario’s part. People regularly mix up words like “north” and “south” or “left” and “right.” Have you never caught yourself saying, “Turn le-, I mean right at the intersection?” If they are nervous or tired or distracted, they may not catch it.

      • Janice
        It’s a slip but a dumb one. Like Obamas … a slip but a dumb one. Palin just seems to have a knack for it that’s all.

        • Simon, wrote, “It’s a slip but a dumb one. Like Obama’s … a slip but a dumb one. Palin just seems to have a knack for it that’s all.”
          Well, Obama has done things many times that are on video and real, that surpass anything you can find on Palin. The thing is, you do not even know why you hate her, other than, you jumped on the bandwagon yelling witch witch with the mob.
          But seriously, Palin has “A knack for it”?
          You found one slip of the tongue, one, and that is all you could find. Everything else you found was (to use a term even you can understand) make believe… she never said it, never happened, nada, nothing zilch.
          So, you’ve spent all this time blaspheming someone who is so far above you in intelligence, and literally everything you said about her was untrue. And, yet, somehow you continue on, that she has a knack for it.
          Can’t you see who’s calling the kettle black here? Think about it Simon. You’re a nothing, if not a useful idiot.

      • Simon, Simon, Simon — the subject class addressed by the ban on ad hominems is other commenters, post authors, the host, and the like, not publicly elected officials — they are fair game (remember, it is almost impossible for them to sue for defamation of character under strong U.S. freedom of speech laws). DOPE IS A DOPE! lolololo
        Re: “despicable worm,” Mr. Simon — you EXASPERATE people to the point that even a lovely person like D.B. Stealey says things like that. IOW: to the charge of hypocrisy, he can plead with success: duress and self-defense and temporary insanity due to being driven crazy by you!!!!
        Simon. I need to stop talking to you, so, please don’t be offended if you are left with a question echoing forever in this thread…

      • Simon,
        You are one of the most astute commenters here. You’re far and away smarter than any of the others, no matter how much more highly educated they are. Not having a CV doesn’t matter, Simon. You’re still smarter than any skeptic.
        Your views on the climate are some of the best around. Really, you should be on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
        I’ve learned really a lot from you, Simon, so I hope you keep on commenting…
        (Ha-Ha! Simon is really the same old clueless dolt. April Fool! ☺)

      • Simon says:
        “…DB thinks you shouldn’t criticise elected politicians.”
        Simon, we don’t need further proof that you have no idea what you’re babbling about. But I’ll point out that you have no understanding about what I think.
        If you did, your IQ would skyrocket. But the only thing you presume you ‘know’ are the alarmist talking points that you parrot because you can’t think for yourself.

    • “global warming has not accelerated. In fact, it has been stopped for almost twenty years.” You might want to look at recent data. You are looking out of date.

      • It’s called El Nino.
        Nice try seaice, not good enough. Try again.
        Anyway, if a real warming trend appears after the La Nina dip, good. I like warmth, not cold.

      • David Smith
        Please explain why temperatures are higher after this El Nino than the last. Could it be that the world is warming?

      • Johnknight
        Still warming and is avoiding the question. How can we be having records broken if it is just El Nino? Clearly it is not. Saying El Nino is responsible is like saying you can lift yourself in the air by pulling your shoelaces. El Nino has no affect on the long term warming.

      • seaice1,
        Thanx for your opinion. Of course, it’s wrong. Your baseless assertions generally are.
        And as usual, you’re deflecting again. Global warming has been going on the same for a couple centuries, which falsifies your ridiculous notion that CO2 controls temperature to any measurable degree.
        Even more preposterously, you believe that CO2 controls the amount of polar ice!
        Go stand in the corner with Simon. We have an extra dunce cap, so neither of you will go without.

      • DB
        No. Not because I can’t…. but because I can’t to you.
        There is a limit to what can be explained to someone who does not want to hear. Keep living on the outer DB. I don’t know whether you have noticed, but you are in a very tiny minority. In fact there would not be a scientist on the planet who would support your “CO2 does not cause warming” delusion. If you think I’m wrong, name one.

        • Simon,
          I just love your projection. For someone so clueless, you probably even believe it.
          But the fact is there are literally tens of thousands of professional scientists, all educated in the hard sciences, who contradict the pile of horse manure you’re constantly trying to peddle here.
          Finally, you don’t learn, but for any other readers I’ll point out that I have never said that CO2 causes no warming. Where do you get your misinformation? Or is it just stupidity, as I suspect? Or do you enjoy lying?
          I’ve repeatedly posted the names of thousands of scientists and engineers who contradict your ridiculous alarmist beliefs. I also challenged you, personally, to post the names of even one percent of that number of names, naming scientists who have signed their names contradicting the OISM petition, and the thousands of other scientists who agree with me — and disagree with you. But of course… *crickets*
          So once again I challenge you to post the names of even 1% of the number of OISM co-signers, who disagree with them.
          But you won’t, because you can’t. And anyone who would once again wade into your unwinnable argument confirms that you’re a dim bulb.
          Trot along to hotwhopper with the other alarmist parrots. That’s really where you belong. When you comment here you just lower the avarage IQ. By quite a bit, actually.

        • Simon: “There is a limit to what can be explained to someone who does not want to hear.”
          Indeed there is, simon.
          And if anyone could be said to epitomise that statement, it is without a shadow of a doubt you, by a huge margin.
          Just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

      • DB
        Just one DB who says you are right that CO2 causes no warming of the atmosphere. I’m not talking about those who say we have nothing to worry about, I’m talking about those who would support you in your looney statement (not ad hom I’m criticising your statement) that CO2 has no affect on climate. Don’t bother replying unless you have a name.

      • Good news, Simon, I just heard March was a tenth of a degree cooler than February . . temps are now falling over two hundred times faster than they rose in eighteen years . . April fool ; )

      • Johnknight
        I’m assuming you are using satellite data? There’s your problem. We don’t live in space.

        • Simon says:
          “Still waiting”.
          Simon, you’re still sitting at your keyboard, waiting anxiously for me to reply? Believe it or not, I have more of a life than you do, including a disabled wife who comes before any response to you. But I’m glad you’ve been waiting, because now I’ll explain exactly what kind of strawman you set up. It isn’t pretty.
          I’m not stupid like you, Simon, and I don’t fall for your kind of strawman dishonesty. You wrote:
          “I’m talking about those who would support you in your looney statement (not ad hom I’m criticising your statement) that CO2 has no affect on climate.”
          You’re lying, Simon. Why? I’ll explain why in a moment. But first, let me remind you that I have never said that CO2 has no affect (sic) on the climate.
          I’ve said that CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate. As I’ve pointed out several times now, at the current ≈400 ppm, any effect is simply too minuscule to measure. I have always accepted the argument based on radiative physics that the log effect of CO2 causes the most warming effect within the first few dozen ppm. But at current concentrations, adding more CO2 is completely harmless, and a net benefit. Its effect at ≈400 ppm is simply too small to measure.
          That has always been my stated position, Simon. But since that defenestrates your alarmism, you are forced to misrepresent what I’ve repeatedly written, falsely claiming that I’ve said “CO2 has no affect (sic) on the climate”. By changing my words, Simon, you lied. That’s why you didn’t cut and paste my statement, verbatim.
          I said I would explain why you lied, Simon, so here it is:
          People claim that they lie for all kinds of reasons: to help others, or to excuse a greater evil, etc. But the fact is that people lie for only one reason: People lie because they’re liars. Liars lie. You lied, Simon.
          You lost the science argument long ago, Simon. So you had two choices: either concede that skeptics were right… or lie. The choice you made is clear.

      • DB
        I am all good with waiting, particularly if you have others to support. That is admirable and I wouldn’t wait to distract you from that support for someone in need.
        So….. (and I am quoting you) “I’ve said that CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate.”
        If you can quote a recognised scientist working in the field, who has stated this to be true (or says something similar) then I will leave you to wallow in your victory…. for a while. So there’s todays challenge. Just so we are clear though “no measurable” not “little” or “not worth worrying about.” “No measurable.”
        And one last request… no more “you are dumb” or “a worm” talk. We are not children.

        • Simon,
          My apologies for the worm label. I have too little patience for someone who gives his opinion as if it’s a fact. And thanx for admitting I’m right. In this debate, skeptics of the ‘carbon’ scare are almost always right. It’s the climate alarmist crowd that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong, at least regarding every scientific argument.
          Next, if you can’t grasp the fact that despite a steady rise in CO2, the repeatedly predicted rise in global warming did not happen, then you probably wouldn’t understand that at current levels, CO2 has had no measurable effect on what is erroneously called “the climate” (they are referring to AGW).
          Furthermore, there is ample evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. But there is no verifiable, empirical, testable evidence showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of global ∆T. I don’t disagree that CO2 has a small effect on temperature. But that tiny effect is a net benefit. And no one has ever identified any global harm, or damage, resulting from the rise in either temperature, or CO2. So by definition, they are ‘harmless’.
          Next, you request that I do a little research for you? Do your own. You will remember it better. However, just off the top of my head, Jim Steele (teacher, author, ‘recognized scientist’, researcher) has stated that CO2 has no measurable effect on global T at current levels. He isn’t the only one. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi is another, and if I felt like doing your homework assignment I would find lots more. I know this, because I’ve read their comments.
          And I don’t “wallow in victory”; I’m either right, or I’m wrong. In this case I’m right, as I have been throughout this one-sided debate (excepting any insults; but I don’t appreciate someone deliberately misquoting me, and then arguing with their strawman. That is dishonest. If you want to dispute anything I write, cut and paste my words verbatim — you know, the way I do yours).
          I’ve met your challenges. That should end this discussion. But if you want to continue, you can start by answering the questions I’ve asked. You know, all the questions I’ve asked, but that you avoid answering.

      • DB
        You certainly are unique
        I never admitted you were right….. Please quote me if I did.
        Jim Steele is not a climate scientist. Your other guy (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi) is pretty much out there on his own it seems. Roy Spencer had this to say about his CO2 has no effect….”I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect. I would love for there to be one. But I don’t see it yet.”
        Is he practicing now? I couldn’t find much on him apart from his statements some time ago that were highly controversial at the time.
        Judith Curry had no time for his work either…”To define the greenhouse effect out of existence because it balances the TOA solar radiation is not very useful, to say the least.
        The paper seems to have the same problems for which it was criticized by Spencer, SOD, etc.
        So your guys are really of no consequence. Sorry. Please don’t try again though. I’ve wasted enough time chasing shadows for you. I think anyone reading this (even genuine skeptics) would think the assertion that CO2 has no (measurable)affect on warming is just plain wrong. Clearly it does, it is just a case of how much and how much damage will occur as a result of the warming. You say it is all good news…. I am not so sure. That is where the real discussion should be. So if you want to keep talking, lets go there, otherwise, have a nice day.

        • Simon: You have to understand, that when Roy Spencer talks about the “basic theory” there is much to that statement that you may not understand, including the well known logarithmic effect and all of the other parts of the science. You cannot assume Spencer thinks the basic theory suggests a catastrophic amount of runaway warming. So, you’re picking statements and applying conclusions that just are not there. Professor Lindzen probably explains it best. Most people do not disagree that CO2 has “some affect on temperature”, the disagreement is in the amount of the affect a doubling of CO2 from 20th century levels has on future temperatures. To that end, there has been no evidence that supports the idea of measurable warming.

  36. why is she there?
    enough said i guess-
    “3.5 million books and has more than 5.8 million followers on social media. Palin is one the Smithsonian Institute’s 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time”

  37. Ferdinand Engelbeen on April 1, 2016 at 1:58 am
    Never heard of “Troopergate”? Right or wrong, both political parties of Alaska declared that Palin had abused here power as Governor to fire her former brother in law from the Alaskan Troopers. Later she was excused of wrongdoing by a self-appointed “Alaska Personnel Board”…
    Yes, Ferdinand – never heard of. And thanks for the answere with full name.
    You can imagine the situation – stranger in a strange land – going through mine fields.
    Best Regards – Hans

  38. AIG:
    nobody here is interested in internal affairs of the US.
    Mr. Anthony Watts supports a platform one can communicate with the US, germany, Austria, Czech Republic. …
    I know this is a decent place and that platform HOLDS.
    that ‘echo chamber’ – You’d rather have an AIG echo chamber ?

  39. So who would you suggest?
    Mitt Romny. Hulk Hogan. Bill O’Reilly.
    Thousands of people love those guys, too.

  40. I pity the mods having to read through all this political biffo. I’ll lighten the load by butting out now.

Comments are closed.