FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2016
(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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
What has taken so long to get this movie out to the public?
That is a good question. Don’t hold your breath for an answer.
Ex-Governor Palin is just about the weakest advocate anyone could ask for. Is this a joke?
And Bill Nye is an advocate for good climate science?
What about Canadian release? Dvd? Streaming?
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 !
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.
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.
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.
So there we have it –
Sarah Palin
Vs
Possible Prison sentence Rajendra Pachauri
I suggest a possible mud wresting match between them,
Why would you want to dirty perfectly good mud?
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.)
..Wow, that almost made sense !!
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.
..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 !
AIG ( vast Majority ) now we know who you are !
Everybody is ripping on Sara Palin so much, nobody is blaming Bush.
Yes, but Bush was not invited to the party, Palin is…
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.
Ferdinand, if Palin is ultra-right, what/who would you consider as ultra-left?
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
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.
WE DIDN’T GET AFFORDABLE HEATHCARE FOR MILLIONS!
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 …
w.
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?
Has anyone stopped to consider that people (for or against) will watch this film because of Palin’s involvement?
I am a firm AGW skeptic, and yet with Palin’s association with this film, I am no longer interested in it.
Then you are either childish or never had any interest in the first place ! And NO, I am NOT a Palin fan !
Well Marcus, you must be a Palin fan. How unfortunate.
It’s called eyeballs.
AKA, optics.
eyeballs
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:
http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/09/247411-what-the-president-didnt-see-from-alaska/
You forgot to add “Wake Up Sheeple!” at the end of your diatribe.
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.
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.
..Come on, admit it..You are a liberal that is too embarrassed to acknowledge that you are a liberal !
AIG,
So who would you suggest?
Name names. Give us a dozen.
You’ve got a phonebook handy?
Yep.
But you don’t?
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.
Pat Frank,
Exactly right. If they had a good scientific case, there would be no need to attack any personalities.
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
I agree with you – they’re all pretty hopeless.
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?
You’ve got it in a nutshell AIG.
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.
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.
Pathetic.
..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 “
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?
Wildly off topic.
Nigel Farage and Mark Steyn vs Louise Arbour and Simon Schama
April 1, 2016
“be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”
http://munkdebates.com/debates/Global-Refugee-Crisis
Register for “free livestream viewing”.
https://munkdebates.com/membership?mode=register
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.
Do you work for Mr. Soros by any chance, Simon?
“Do you work for Mr. Soros by any chance, Simon?”
Are you funded by Koch Brothers per chance? See what I did there? No, of course you don’t.
Sure, you imitated me . . psychopathology perhaps.
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.
There are websites dedicated to listing/ranking the dumb things she has said. Google it.
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?
@ur momisugly 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)
(youtube)
“… 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?
A tenth of a degree warmer in 18 years, Simon?
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.
Simon sez:
El Nino has no affect on the long term warming.
Neither does CO2. Prove me wrong.
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.
DB
Still waiting…….
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.
I guess we just have to bow at the altar of killary the hag of benghazi then
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”
Well there you go…