My review: Skeptic Film ‘Climate Hustle’ to appear in theaters Nationwide one week from tonight

climate-hustle

One week from tonight on May 2nd, CFACT’s groundbreaking film Climate Hustle will be shown in movie theaters across the United States for a special one-night event. I’m in the film, and for the record I’m not paid to do so. That’s not a complaint, just a statement for those people who try to link any opinion to some sort of “pay for play” arrangement, since they have so little else in their toolbox to argue with.

I was given an advance showing of the film, and while at first, I thought perhaps the film was maybe a bit too corny, especially when Morano recreates the famous elevator/lift scene from Al Gore’s long debunked movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and does a terrible job of play acting. I thought then that maybe it just wasn’t going to be a credible response.

But then I realized, the film isn’t intended to strike a serious tone all the time, because in reality, who wants to go to the movies for a snoozer of a documentary? This is why some of the other film efforts by greens and green filmmakers fail. For example: Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate movie, The 11th hour, or Greedy Lying Bastards, where the “filmmakers examine how and why oil companies and other special-interest groups cast doubt on climate change and stall efforts to combat it” according to its description. It cost 1.5 million to make, and returned just a fraction of that in ticket sales, earning only $45,000. No, Climate Hustle isn’t like those, and despite the claims of millions of dollars from oil companies we are all supposed to be getting, its production values gives away that it was made on a shoestring, and has none of the glitzy production values of these other films that bombed.

Yesterday Marc Morano appeared on Fox & Friends to unveil the animal that has served as a mascot for both a warming and cooling globe.  Can you guess which animal it is? No it isn’t a polar bear, and it will make you laugh, and that’s the purpose of this film, to make people laugh at the ridiculous claims that have been created about global warming/climate change. Morano does this, and does it well. That’s the power behind this film.

Through the film, there’s a rapid fire series of comparisons throughout the film that illustrate the failure of claims, by using the claims themselves. Morano doesn’t need to spin anything, because when you just look at the claims, counterclaims, the contradictions, and the outright failures of the predictions about sea ice, boiling oceans, species extinction, heat waves, rising sea levels, worsening weather, and dozens of other things, you can’t help but come away laughing.

The film’s strength is its wickedly effective use of slapstick humor, and making use of the words and deeds of alarmists to make you laugh at them. Climate Hustle is a brilliant use of their own ammunition against them.

Here are some trailers of the film:

Global warming campaigners are not happy about this film. For example, the paid PR firm Hoggan and associates (aka Desmog Blog) came up with a website called “Climate Hustler” complete with a Russian style reversed letter at the end for that extra bit of visual evilness, and used it to slime the film’s producer, Marc Morano. Obviously, they fear the film and what effects it might have on their paid misinformation budget, said to be mainly from the David Suzuki foundation.

They’ve bullied and pressured their way into dominating discussion about “climate change” long enough, so it is about time for some payback. They are going to get it.

So, let’s head to the movies on May 2nd, ask the questions and learn the facts the “climate hustlers” don’t want us to think about, and laugh them off the world stage together.
Monday May 2nd will be an historic night, since there’s never been a skeptic film like this before.  So if you haven’t already, invite a friend who thinks the world is going to hell in a hand-basket due to climate change to sit back and take in the reality with some popcorn. Get a large bucket, you’ll need it.

http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

 

Advertisements

217 thoughts on “My review: Skeptic Film ‘Climate Hustle’ to appear in theaters Nationwide one week from tonight

  1. OK then. I tweeted this one out to my 2500 or so followers on Twitter. Most of my folks are skeptics like I am and so I hope to see so of us go an see the film if life allows.

    Great review by the way.

    ~ Mark

  2. Shed a tear for us poor victims in the UK, who are being taxed to the hilt and look like losing our once great Steel Industry due to a clown called Milliband and the CO2 religion, who won’t get to see it.

    • Noted, I lived with my family in the outskirts of London for 2 years for business, and these were two of the best years of my life.. I had numerous British friends and colleagues and thoroughly enjoyed that phase of my career and life and would not trade it for anything. I am saddened that the UK politicians seems to be taking it’s citizens in a direction that will significantly lower the quality of life with their incomprehensible obsession with climate change/global warming.
      Unfortunately the US may not be too far behind.

    • All the more reason to vote to leave the EU and their obsession on taxing everything to do with the climate and vote for UKIP in the next election, which hopefully will be as soon as the UK leaves this corrupt club. Cameron has proved he is incapable of running the country and putting the people first, I will be voting by proxy from here in Canada. UKIP are, I believe, the only party to denounce this climate scam as nonsense and plan to end the rip off taxes on power.

      • I hear his interfering has has pissed off a lot of people who were undecided and now plan to vote to leave. Can you see the American people being told by Cameron that America must vote to be told what to do by Mexico and have their laws made by unelected foreigners? I think not!

    • The estimated annual impact of the green tax on Tata Steel was £7.5M – it is estimated that Tata Steel was losing that much per week, mostly due to low cost steel from China. Oh, and Tata Steel made an estimated £239M through the emissions trading scheme. So no, the green tax was not the reason for the plant closing, it’s just a convenient scapegoat.
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/05/green-policies-are-not-responsible-for-the-tata-steel-crisis

      • So if the far-left leaning, climate alarmist, plunging circulation Guardian says so, it must be true. Backed up by it’s broadcasting arm, the equally alarmist BBC no doubt.

        Can I interest you in a wonderful bridge with two towers that’s going cheap? I can do you a great deal if you’re interested..

      • So they made more money From Co2 cap and trade than producing a product. What a scam. The same is going on with Tesla motors. I understand that 12% of their net profit comes from California’s Cap and trade. All paid for on the backs of hard working disappearing middle class.

      • So they made more money through Co2 Cap and Trade than producing a product. What a scam. Just like Tesla Motors. I understand that 12% of their net profit comes from Cap and Trade paid for on the back of disappearing hard working middle class.

      • UK Sceptic, can you point me to any links that refute the points that a) electricity prices make up a very small % of a steel manufacturer’s total costs? and b) that Tata Steel benefited substantially from the emissions trading scheme?

        Steel prices have dropped by 40% since 2011 – gee, do you think that might be a bigger factor in Tata Steel’s struggles rather than what they pay for electricity?

        http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-the-steel-crisis-and-uk-electricity-prices

      • When my kids were still at school, about 10 years, they were taken on an educational day trip/visit to a large steelworks here in the UK.
        They were quite blown away by the scale of the thing and especially one particular little factoid.
        That was, that every 45 minutes of every day of the year, a train carrying 2,500 tons of coal arrived to power that one steelworks.

        Lets do some maths, 32 train loads of 2,500 tons each times 365 and assume each ton of coal produces 2.75 tons of CO2
        Take the UK carbon tax as £18 per ton of CO2, so that steelworks would be paying how much tax, per year……

      • Chris

        Steel prices have dropped by 40% since 2011 – gee, do you think that might be a bigger factor in Tata Steel’s struggles rather than what they pay for electricity?

        Gee, why do you suppose Tata is shedding it’s British interests but apparently expanding the ones in India and Vietnam? Maybe because India and Vietnam don’t have crazy people dictating stupid, high cost sustainable energy policies which means they can compete with China.

        Oh wait, the BBC and the Guardian don’t want people to know that, do they…

      • UK Sceptic, so no refutation of my 2 main points?

        As to your point, gosh, what do India and Vietnam have in common? Very low labor rates compared to the UK, roughly 1/10th of that in the UK. Also, the Indian economy is very protectionist (unlike the UK), and so having operations in India makes sense. Here’s an article in the Daily Mail about the Port Talbot plant. Note 2 things: 1) the plant is losing £1M/day, or £365Myear. Do you really think that £7.5M in annual energy surcharges were the deciding factor in closing the plant? 2) the article makes zero mention of energy costs as a factor in their decision. It is all about low cost steel from China, and lack of government support.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514583/Thousands-British-jobs-risk-Indian-owned-Tata-Steel-prepares-sell-s-entire-UK-business.html

      • I notice that you conveniently left out the insanely high cost of energy caused by those green policies.
        Perhaps you were merely negligent, or were you hoping the lie wouldn’t be caught?

      • Chris,

        According to analyst Rakesh Arora the energy cost, per tonne, for UK steel is $200 whereas the cost to China is as little as $10 per tonne. While a cheap labour force may well have something to do with reducing the cost of production in China are you honestly going to tell me that the UK isn’t disadvantaged by paying up to 20 times more in the cost of energy compared to it’s Chinese rivals? Have you stopped to think that the cheapness of Chinese steel production, of which the difference in energy cost is substantial, may go some way to explaining why there is a glut in steel production and is the reason why the price has fallen through the floor? How can the UK steel industry compete with that?

        The double whammy is that the steel glut isn’t just down to the Chinese. The dead hand of the EU is making itself felt too. In February, this year Germany produced 3,362 thousand tonnes of steel to UK’s 379 thousand tonnes. France produced 1,317 thousand tonnes, Itally 1,928 tonnes and Spain 1.087 thousand tonnes. Then there’s the UK business rates, up to 10 times higher than either Germany or France. How can the UK steel industry compete with that?

        You won’t find the answers on either the Grauniad or Al Jabeeba websites. They don’t want to talk about the herd of elephants in the room. It’s all the fault of the Chinese you see. Nothing to do with the EU or green policies at all. Therefore nothing to see here, Move along please.

        Tata pulled out because UK steel isn’t commercially viable no matter how valiant the workforce is and no sensible company would continue taking losses of such magnitude. If you want to blame someone blame the politics.

      • UK Sceptic,

        You said “According to analyst Rakesh Arora the energy cost, per tonne, for UK steel is $200 whereas the cost to China is as little as $10 per tonne. While a cheap labour force may well have something to do with reducing the cost of production in China are you honestly going to tell me that the UK isn’t disadvantaged by paying up to 20 times more in the cost of energy compared to it’s Chinese rivals?”

        Hmmm, except that is not what he said:

        “Rakesh Arora, an analyst at Macquarie, told the Financial Times on Thursday that producing steel in the UK “makes no sense actually.”

        The FT reported:

        Steel’s labour costs there [the UK] at about $200 per tonne of production, compared with as little as $10 for its Chinese peers. “That gap was too difficult to bridge with the best of operating efficiencies,” Arora said.”
        Source: http://www.businessinsider.co.id/uk-steel-industry-failure-eu-state-aid-rules-imports-exports-prices-2016-3/#.VyAopfl97IV

        Just as I noted, the issue is labor cost, not energy costs. And, as I noted above, Tata Steel made a bundle of money selling emissions permits (they received more than they required) and so in terms of energy they benefited from their UK location, not the reverse. But unfortunately the combination of labor prices, dumping of Chinese steel and Chinese govt support was too much to overcome.

      • MarkW said: “I notice that you conveniently left out the insanely high cost of energy caused by those green policies.
        Perhaps you were merely negligent, or were you hoping the lie wouldn’t be caught?”

        As I posted above, Tata Steel incurred roughly £7.5M in higher annual energy prices. They made £239M from selling the emissions permits they didn’t need. If you have information that disproves those figures, please provide a link.

      • Just as I noted, the issue is labor cost, not energy costs. And, as I noted above, Tata Steel made a bundle of money selling emissions permits (they received more than they required) and so in terms of energy they benefited from their UK location, not the reverse. But unfortunately the combination of labor prices, dumping of Chinese steel and Chinese govt support was too much to overcome.

        Labour costs certainly have an impact, I’m not disputing that. But it isn’t labour costs alone that makes our steel industry disadvantaged. You appear to take stock of what the BBC has to say about the situation so if you won’t believe me then believe the BBC:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34581945

        Rakesh Arora is quite correct. It makes no sense to manufacture steel in the UK because it is impossible for the industry to compete with international markets, including the EU markets. While the UK can’t compete with the Chinese when it comes to labour costs we can level the playing field when it comes to energy costs and business rates. We need to get rid of the fraudulent green policies that are killing our heavy energy use manufacturing base. But then some people, rather than understand that CAGW is a fraud, would perhaps prefer to place the blame for UK Steel’s ills squarely on the heads of the Chinese, who are in part to blame because of cheap labour costs coupled with the fact they are not lumbered with excessive energy costs,, and ignore the other elephants in the room.

        If the BBC report doesn’t convince you then nothing I say is going to convince you either. If your mind is closed to any other existing factors, and I hope it isn’t, then we are both wasting our time.

        Thank you for keeping the debate on a polite level.

      • UK Sceptic,

        Likewise, thanks for keeping it civil.

        Once again, on energy prices, I’m a data guy. I found data that higher energy prices cost Tata Steel £7.5M per year, but they were losing that much per week – meaning higher energy prices are only responsible for 2% of their losses. That means that other factors dwarf the impact of energy prices. And Tata also made £239M by selling emissions permits they did not require, which once again dwarfs the impact of higher energy prices. The BBC article you posted mentions high energy prices, but makes no quantification of what % of mfg costs that equates to.

        If you still think higher energy prices are a major factor, then how does that explain Germany’s continued success in steel making? In the Business Insider link I posted, you will see that Germany has maintained a high level of steel production, even though they have high energy prices.

      • Chris,

        Germany experienced a Damascene conversion, particularly after the Japanese tsunami, and is building up-to-date, efficient coal fired power stations to replace or reduce their nuclear output. They don’t seem to be quite as bothered about anti-CO2 policies as they once were. I call that economic reality. Merkel seems able to change the rules to suit herself unlike the UK government who are committed to economic suicide by windmill and diesel turbine (!).

        https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/

        In contrast the UK is phasing out its coal fired power stations or converting the biggest and most efficient of them to burning US trees (think Drax). Apparently CO2 from wood is superior to CO2 from coal. Reality has yet to introduce itself to our Westminster village idiots although it does seem to be trying to make itself felt. I hope we don’t have to do it at the point of a pitchfork although Brexit, should it (please God) come about, might be a turning point that will change energy uncertainty to energy security some time in the next decade. It will take us at least that long to begin fixing the damage even if fracking is finally allowed.

        I haven’t actually looked it up but I suspect that German energy is cheaper than that of the UK. How else could they charge less per tonne for steel unless the German government (and those of France, Italy and Spain) are breaking the law by illegally subsidising their steel industry (which I wouldn’t put past the wily Merkel because she has a track record for making things up as she goes along including selling out a German satirist to a foreign tyrant – Erdogan).

        As for data; I’m sure you know what you are talking about and I mean no disrespect to yourself, but having seen what unscrupulous people do with data, how they produce, interpret and apply it, I tend to take data with a pinch of salt because, like statistics, data is only as good as the source bias that collated it. Data abuse is an almost daily event: you can’t eat this; you can’t drink that; you can’t have cheap energy; you must do as we say otherwise the sun will turn to blood, the moon turn to snot and your granny will grow horns and begin snorting fire etc., etc., etc. My response to such nonsense is unprintable on this site.

        Data makes cynics of people because it’s impossible to know what to believe. In some cases claims are so outrageously left of field it would be silly to take them at face value yet some people do. Other data are countered by opposite data apparently gleaned from the same source making it difficult to accept the interpretations unless you are biased towards a particular opinion and we all suffer from bias as some level. I’m not saying you are wrong because I’m fairly certain that the factors you mention have a considerable impact. But then I’m not saying that you are 100% correct either. I believe the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between.

  3. Wonderful. Many thanks AW and I hope for its’ success. Perhaps a Golden Global (at the awards) !

    • Because the box office requires seats be sold to hold position, this thing is likely to play to near empty rooms after one day. Since May 2 is Monday, and that is a day with the lowest attendance anyway theatre owners are not really concerned about a one screen in their multiplex being a dud since it will be any worse than the films at the end of their runs. This would replace the lowest grossing film as it about to depart. The benchmark for this is the film “Expelled” about some bogus Creatiionist gibberish. They gave away large blocks of seats to churches who planned group viewings.

      • Priceless…they are choosing to show it because it won’t do any worse than their worst current movie? They’ll go through all the trouble for the fun of it and then replace it with another movie that has nobody show up, and so on? Why do they even bother running a business? Or maybe they do have a money-maker lined-up instead of another loser, but they are delaying it until after May 2nd for the fun of it.

        Wouldn’t take much to top “Merchants of Doubt,” which had hype galore.

  4. Morano is dead wrong at 2:45. he says “Before global warming there was global cooling and there was actually the theory that fossil fuel burning would block out the sun and cool the Earth. Now they say that never happened
    Over at a website not favored here and representative of the “they” of which Morano speaks, they say ” Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century? The average global surface temperature decreased slightly from 1940 to 1975… Climate scientists believe that the primary cause of this mid-century cooling was an increase in atmospheric aerosols due to anthropogenic emissions (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels).”

    So far from saying “it never happened”, climate scientists very much say “it did happen”.

    Morano must surely be aware that the cooling up to 1970’s is attributed to sulfates from burning fossil fuels blocking the sun and cooling the Earth. When he says “now they say that never happened” he appears to be either very poorly informed or somewhat economical with the actualité.

    If this is the standard it does not inspire much confidence.

    • That’s the same nonsense they sprouted about the “pause”… Must be a magic aerosol effect that comes and goes every 25 years. Here’s a more plausible explanation that plugs the holes in that theory: Man-made emissions have a very small impact on global temperatures. There are other drivers which are not being studied, because the “science is settled”.

      • Nothing “magic” about it.
        There are drivers other than CO2.
        Aerosol being one.
        And cycles such as PDO/ENSO is another that hve shrt-term influence.

        This is the science on “Global dimming”….

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/dimming

        It is settled – as regards increasing CO2 causes the Earth to cool more slowly – the complexity of exactly how the heat in the system moves around in cycles is not. ~93% of the Earth’s heat gained from the Sun resides in the Oceans. Which is why there was a “pause” (-ve PDO/ENSO ) and why we now have had the 2 hottest years in the instrumental record (+ve PDO/ENSO with large EN).
        However those 2 things should even out to a cyclic zero effect given a constant Sun (actually it’s been slowly falling for decades) …..

    • So far from saying “it never happened”, climate scientists very much say “it did happen”.

      You are confusing what they are saying NOW about that climate cooling period and what they said DURING the climate cooling period. I remember it vividly because I lived through it. Children breaking out in tears because the ice age was coming and we were all going to have to abandon our homes and belongings and move.

      • I am not confusing anything. I am remarking on what Morano said. Maybe he is confused, but what he said is wrong.

      • Ha! I get the same kind of reaction when I say smth the populace here would rather not to be true. Soon they will ask you to identify atmospheric formulas to make sure you are worthy discussion partner.

      • You are confusing what they are saying NOW about that climate cooling period and what they said DURING the climate cooling period.

        Absolutely. I was in school and remember being warned that Canada, mainly eastern Canada, was going to be buried in 6 ft of ice by 2010 and creeping southward, covering me. And it’s utter hogwash that it was blamed on anthropogenic emissions (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels). Complete bulls**t. Stop lying.

        From GLOBAL WARMING 5 December 2009 XIII published in The Spectator

        There have even been recent attempts to label the ‘global cooling consensus’ a ‘myth’, most notably in a well-publicised article by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck published by the American Meteorological Society in September 2008.

        (The usual suspects.) Morano is right about that.

        The CIA weighed in with an internal report about Global Cooling in August, 1974. I have a copy but no link. Google it.
        It’s entitled, “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”. Not one word about fossil fuel emissions, not one, in the entire 37-page document. In fact, it says,

        Since the late 1960s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various climatic, meteorological, and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.
        • A global climatic change was underway
        • This climatic change would create worldwide agricultural failures in the 1970s.

        Most meteorologists argued that they could not find iny justification for these predictions. The climatologists who argued for the proposition could not provide definitive causal explanations for their hypothesis.

      • FOr over 70 per cent of the 75 years global temperatures have gone down just as
        CO2 has increased over that entire time. To say that increasing CO2 CAUSES
        Global temperatures to INCREASE without providing ANY scientific evidence. After
        Scientific research has been going on for 35 years is quite unbelievable!!

    • Seaice,

      The cooling cycle of the 1940s to ’70s was not slight. It was dramatic. But not much different from the pronounced natural cooling and warming cycles which preceded it.

      The corrupt GASTA gatekeepers have so cooked the books to make the chill look less cold, but in the late ’70s NCAR’s data showed much more significant cooling over the previous 30 years than the “adjusted” series do now.

      Real climatologists, as opposed to “climate scientists”, ie computer gamers, look at centuries, millennia and much longer time periods. But consider just the past 15 decades or so. Since the end of the LIA in the mid-19th century, a warming cycle was followed by a cooling cycle in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which preceded the strong warming cycle of the 1910s to ’40s, which warming was practically indistinguishable to the late 20th century warming, which was followed c. 1977 to 1996 by the late 20th century warming, since which GASTA has been flat, despite the crooked attempts to make it go up by manipulation. The cycles average around 30 years.

      • Whether they (the climate scientists) are right or wrong is unimportant to this point (although of course not unimportant more generally). The comment is about what they say.

    • I was specifically referring to the overall 1970s coming ice age/global cooling scare that they now say never happened. The warmists have studies out and claims that there essentially was no 1970s global cooling scare except for a few media outlets. That is what I meant when I said “it never happened.”

      • Marc, thanks for the reply. That may be what you meant, but it was not what you said. As this was live TV I guess we can forgive less than absolutely precise language. We can all learn the lesson to not hold people too firmly to things said on live TV or in interviews, and not to portray these as necessarily accurately reflecting their views or the views of others.

        The 1970’s global cooling scare has been documented in the studies you mention as a media rather than a scientific phenomenon. The number of scientific publications predicting warming outnumber those predicting cooling by about 6 to 1, so an accurate media would have reported in a similar proportion. So you are correct to say that they say it never happened, because it didn’t happen as a scientific scare. It did happen as a media occurrence. I don’t think anyone disputes that there was some published science that predicted cooling, but the science was much less settled back then.

      • “… it didn’t happen as a scientific scare. It did happen as a media occurrence.”

        That sounds exactly like what is happening now.

        Except for perhaps some fringe scientists, the “consensus” is now more along the lines of, “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”

        The Media, the Politicians, and the Environmental Activists, on the other hand, are out of hand.

      • John Who. According to the studies the position in the scientific journals is similar to the 1960’s. The majority of published papers still say global warming, but instead of 6 to 1 the ratio is now much higher. Also like the 1960s and 70s the media has got it wrong. The media thrives on dissent, so they portray it as a battle of two evenly matched sides.

      • John@EF,

        Since you use the sidebar rankings/listings as your authority, I suppose you agree that ‘skepticalscience’ is “unreliable”.

        Double ugly.

      • Is that “6 to 1” the number of papers that describe how human CO2 emissions may be affecting the climate or is it including papers that mention global warming/climate change?

        Heck, one could write a paper showing how ice cream cones melt faster now due to “climate change” than they did 30 years ago. Doesn’t mean that paper supports the concept that human CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to warm.

      • Seaice and Wagen are wrong again. The “Ice Age scare was real, and was not just the media overreacting.
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/ “Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA”

        Furthermore Mark Morano is correct in the denial of global cooling. In the climate-gate emails there was open discussion about removing the 1940s warming blip and the strong global cooling until the late 1970 have been mostly erased. So when they claim only .1 degrees of change from the raw records they are being dishonest.

        =====================================
        “NCAR data showed Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1870 to 1880, followed by 0.7C global warming from 1880 to 1940, and global cooling of 0.6C from 1940 to 1970. There was no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and possibly cooling during that period”
        =====================================

        “Briffa’s trees showed the same 1940’s to 1970’s cooling, which Michael Mann hid”

        “Reality didn’t fit the global warming narrative, and in order to facilitate Michael Mann’s farcical hockey stick NASA did their own nature trick and erased the post-1940 cooling from the surface temperature record.”

        Sorry seaice and wegan, Mark Morano is correct, they do deny this happened, the deny the past global cooling, the ice age scare, and they hide the decline. It is shameful, as is your support.

      • seaive 1,

        The number of scientific publications predicting warming outnumber those predicting cooling by about 6 to 1, so an accurate media would have reported in a similar proportion.

        B.S. Prove it.

      • There are two issues getting mixed up.
        1) What Marc Morano said. He said the climate scientists now say that global cooling in the middle of last century due to burning fossil fuels did not happen. He is wrong because they do in fact say that, which I have demonstrated.
        2) What Marc Morano says he actually meant. What he meant was that there was a global cooling scare in the mid century, but the climate scientists now say there was not. Studies show that there was genuine debate. After all, we now know that the cooling was real and was caused by fossil fuel burning. Most scientific publications that mention climate change said warming was probable, a fraction said cooling was more likely. That is the reality, and that is what “they” claim happened. The claim is that mid century all scientists thought there would be cooling and then changed their minds.

        What happened is a media scare that did not represent the scientific debate. DavidA tries to demonstrate that it was not a “media scare” by linking to a post that publishes no fewer than 44 newspaper articles claiming something like “The Ice Age Cometh!” and one scientific paper that says both warming and cooling are possible, but cooling more likely. That sounds like a media scare to me.

        So if we allow Morano what he says he meant he is still wrong.

      • The only one confused is you seaice. The cooling was dramatic, real and global, and as said, EVERY major climate organization endorsed it. This is what is now being denied, and the changes to the global record demonstrate it. Marc Morano is correct, you are being both pedantic and wrong.

        Hide the decline, removing the 1940s blip, the erasing of the MWP, was real and shameful. That is what THEY say never happened. Your density in this is clear and embarrassing to yourself. Just because you mimic the words and assertions of certain alarmists, does not make them true. The world would be fairly chaotic if its roundness depended on your belief.

      • DavidA. ” The cooling was dramatic, real and global, and as said, EVERY major climate organization endorsed it.” I agree with this.
        “This is what is now being denied…”

        This is not being denied. Today, climate scientists agree that there was cooling back in the1940’s to 1970’s. I provided evidence in the form of a quote from skeptical science blog to prove that.

        Just what do you think the scientists say “never happened”?

        Marc Morano says it was the scare. You say it was the cooling. Both are wrong.

      • For the record, “seaice1” is just plain wrong in his thinking and his argument. he’s doing little more than hand-waving.

        There was in fact a very large and alarming cooling in the 70’s temperature record, and climate science drove media stories that suggested a new ice age was imminent, i.e a “scare”. I actually created a 30 minute documentary that aired on our local TV station interviewing scientists and forecasters about this belief. I lived it and breathed it at time, I saw the concern.

        The Peterson Connolly and Fleck paper: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 was little more than a transparent attempt to make it look like this never happened. Given the involvement of arch-wikiobfuscator William Connolley, it’s patently clear to anyone except the members of the cause that the paper was little more than an attempt to make the 70’s cooling scare look like a myth, in fact, the title of this “scientific” paper The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus uses wordcraft to achieve that goal. Essentially they argue for a consensus that never happened.

        Peterson and Connolley have both done some pretty scurrilous things, they are part of “the cause” in their words and deeds, with political connotations, and their work isn’t trustworthy. The entire goal was to make it look like it was AGW all along, and cooling wasn’t ever a serious consideration, because we just can’t have climate science inconveniently reversing itself.

        The whole paper along with “seaice1” and the spinning argument is just laughable sophistry in support of wishful thinking that warming was always “it” as far as science was concerned.

      • Anthony, if you have specific rebuttal of the paper can you outline what is wrong with it? Simply saying that the authors have done scurrilous things is not a rebuttal.

        The paper says that there were some tens of papers about climate change at this time, and most of them were concerned about warming. That still leaves a few that were concerned about cooling. It would be wrong to say that this paper attempts to eradicate this concern from the records. What it says it that there was not a consensus view among climate scientists at the time that cooling was going to happen. The media chose to focus on the genuine concern of cooling and ignore the genuine concern of warming.

        The title is the myth of the global cooling scientific consensus. It is not the myth of some concern over cooling.

        Are you saying that there was a scientific consensus of cooling? The myth, if there is one, is not that there was concern or that there was a media scare, it is that here was a scientific consensus.

        I have not said that warming was “it” at that time. There was concern over warming and concern over cooling.

        Some have called me a pedant. It is true, but that is becasue the meaning is important. It makes a huge difference if we say there was a scare in the media or if we say there was a scientific consensus. We should not mix up the two.

      • The “scare” was in the minds and therefore on the pages/screens of the media. It was never a consensus amongst scientists….

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1971_to_1975:_papers_on_warming_and_cooling_factors
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

        Just as extreme aspects of the *contrarian* invented “CAGW” meme makes a good headline for media so did cooling back then.

        Remember they are not in the business of fair-mined informing. Rather sensationalist stories that sell copy.

      • seaice1, john@ef:

        Take a close look at that ametsoc paper, what it actually says deep in the paper, and take the time to look at the papers it cites. You will find that it is not at all how people represent it, and even how it represents itself in the abstract.

        First of all, it evaluated papers on whether they looked at potential warming effects or cooling effects, not whether they predicted the earth would warm or cool. This is actually admitted deep in the paper.

        Second, if the paper even considered a possible warming effect, it was counted as a “warming” paper, even if it also considered possible cooling effects. Each one of the first six cited “warming” papers I examined directly considered possible cooling effects at least as much, but were not even counted as “neutral”.

        It is a spectacularly dishonest piece of science, but it did its political job brilliantly, as it is repeatedly used to shut down discussion of the 1970s “global cooling scare”.

      • @Ed Bo April 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm

        “Second, if the paper even considered a possible warming effect, it was counted as a “warming” paper, even if it also considered possible cooling effects. Each one of the first six cited “warming” papers I examined directly considered possible cooling effects at least as much, but were not even counted as “neutral”.”

        Ed Bo, this is nonsense. Manbe and Wetherald 1967, for example, goes as far as giving a sensitivity estimate for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 2.3 … I have to question if you actually read those papers.

    • Seaice1

      Do you happen to know (or care) which revision of the data are “they” using at the moment?

      Oooo…my head hurts. I can’t even stay up with the revised data, let alone the pretend reasons for the revised data. We used to laugh at people who did this data fiddle stuff…in fact, it was career limiting/ending.

      • Javert Chip. I do not know what you are trying to say – what data? I sympathise with the headache. Perhaps you should take an aspirin.

      • seaice1 gets his information from “a website not favored here”, so he/she probably won’t have a clue which revision of which manipulated data set once was on that site but was removed for a different revision of a manipulated data set and is no longer visible on that “unfavorable” website.

        We should give seaice1 a break – it is hard to remember which “fiddle with” stuff goes with what.

      • JohnWho. I obtained that information from a site not favored here to demonstrate what “they” were saying. I do not comment here on whether what “they” say is correct or not since that is not the point I am making.

        I have no idea what data set you and Javert think I am referring to.

      • “Now, we are told that it was a handful of kooks (cooks?) who thought that and never happened on any substantial scale” No, we are not told they were kooks. The state of the science at the time was much less developed. The scientists predicting possible cooling were not kooks but well meaning scientists working with the best they had. There were only about 70 papers published in this decade or so. Most were saying some warming was likely, a minority said we should be worried about cooling. As the science progressed the evidence came down overwhelmingly on the warming side. Global cooling dropped out of the scientific journals.

        I read a book on the solar system from the 1970’s. It said there were two theories about the origin of the solar system. Either the planets coalesced form a disc at the time the sun formed, or a passing star dragged a cigar-like tube of gas from the sun that coalesced into the planets. At the time presumably scientists had reasons to consider both possible. Now we know the passing star theory was wrong. That does not make the scientists that supported the theory kooks.

      • Faulty logic seaice. The data sets we had in the late 1970s early 1980 are as good as the what we have now. In some ways better, and there were as many stations then, as being used now. (Yes, the satellite data sets are a definite improvement, but you do not want to go there, and clearly they did not go back before the early 1970s) We cannot improve the data from what we knew in the 1970s, because modern instruments can not travel back in time.

        Besides, you are wrong about the ice age scare as well. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/my-review-skeptic-film-climate-hustle-to-appear-in-theaters-nationwide-one-week-from-tonight/comment-page-1/#comment-2199613

      • If temperatures go down from here, we are still in a longterm downtrend, the one we have been in since the 1930’s.

        If temperatures go up from here, the trendline will change to an uptrend, and the 80+ year downtrend from the 1930’s, will end.

        up or down, that is the question. Continue the trend, or break the trend.

      • seaice, everything you are saying now is what all warmistas say now.
        It is obvious you are rather young.
        The truth is about the opposite of what you claim.
        You are just plain wrong, and should maybe admit it for once in your life.
        If not in public, at least to yourself.
        Seriously…do yourself that favor…you will be amazed at how good it feels to throw the scales off of your eyes.

        I studied all of the relevant subjects in college in those days, and I can tell you for sure that from the time I was in grade school, everyone believed we are heading into another ice age.
        The reason why this was a widely held belief is easy to understand…just look at a temperature reconstruction of global temps from the ice core data…this interglacial is very long in the tooth.
        It is already longer than any of the past bunch of interglacial periods.
        A quick look at the Greenland ice core data shows a very clear and worrisome trend, one that any rational and honest and cognitively unbiased and scientifically inclined person would recognize as a trend towards lower temps…lower peaks, and lower troughs.
        If this was a stock chart, it would be clear this was one to dump on any uptick, and no serious trader would try to imply differently.
        The more you repeat this garbage, seaice, the sillier you look to people who know the actual history, whether by living through it or otherwise.
        Get real!

      • DavidA. “Faulty logic seaice. The data sets we had in the late 1970s early 1980 are as good as the what we have now.”
        Not in one very important regard. The data we had back in the 1970’s did not include any from the 1980’s to 2016. Thus the data we have now is very much superior in that regard. It is a fact that there was cooling. At the time we did not know whether it would continue. You cannot show that it was not a “media scare” by linking to a post with over 40 newspaper articles and one abstract from a paper that acknowledges warming and cooling are possible. That rather demonstrates that it was a media scare.

        Nobody is claiming that there was not concern back then. After all, the world had cooled for a couple of decades. What “they” say is that more scientists even then were concerned about warming than about cooling, although at that time very few scientists were concerned at all.

      • Seaice, your disingenuous straw-man responses are poor form;

        Seaice quotes” DavidA. “Faulty logic seaice. The data sets we had in the late 1970s early 1980 are as good as what we have now.”

        Seaice says,
        ================================
        “Not in one very important regard. The data we had back in the 1970’s did not include any from the 1980’s to 2016. Thus the data we have now is very much superior in that regard”
        ================================

        Straw-man alert. Seaice, of course we did not have post 1980s data in 1979. However, as you KNOW, that is not what your objection in YOUR post is about at ALL! By the way, the data post 1980 is horrible FUBAR and you ignore the station sitting issue, the over-hyped TOB issue, the under appreciated UHI issue, the erasing of stations, the elimination of using about 50% of the remaining stations, the continues, without reason or explanation, ongoing monthly changing of the past, the removal of the 40s blip, hide the decline, and a host of other issues you choose to continue to remain ignorant on.

        Seaice continues…
        ============================
        “You cannot show that it was not a “media scare” by linking to a post with over 40 newspaper articles and one abstract from a paper that acknowledges warming and cooling are possible. That rather demonstrates that it was a media scare.
        ===========================
        Seaice, your disingenuous posts continue. If you are sincere, then STOP misrepresenting what was linked to. Did you miss the global graphics from the time showing a Global meant T decline 300% greater then is now shown.?! Did you miss the words and graphics of “EVERY MAJOR CLIMATE ORGANIZATION AT THE TIME? Did you miss the fact that the newspapers at the time were talking about what SCIENTISTS and ORGANIZATIONS they worked for told the media? It is one thing to debate, but to neither read or THINK, that is something less flattering.

        Seaice continues…
        ======================
        “Nobody is claiming that there was not concern back then. After all, the world had cooled for a couple of decades. What “they” say is that more scientists even then were concerned about warming than about cooling, although at that time very few scientists were concerned at all.”
        =====================

        I love the irony of your self- contradicting statements[ “Nobody is claiming that there was not concern back then” followed by ” …”at that time very few scientists were concerned at all”

        Seaice, as demonstrated by EVERY MAJOR climate organization at the time, including government organizations like the CIA and by the global surface records AT THE TIME, you are wrong, Marc Morano is correct.

      • I remember the cooling scare well in the 70’s. They never said a thing about burning coal as a possible cause.

        In the 80’s there was a scare about global dimming which was revived for a while in the early 90’s. According to that scare the dimming was to cause 50% of sunlight to be blocked from reaching the ground and all crops were going to die.

        There was no tie in to the ‘prevention of global warming’ until the 2000’s when charts showing the cooling were being used to question the advancing claims that CO2 was really powerful as a heating agent.

        It was the UEA crowd that I remember starting to bleat about how ‘the modellers’ were ‘proving’ that the reason CO2 had no effect from 1940-1970 was because of the dust from burning so much coal, giving coal smoke and dust a far more powerful role than existed before. Of course they needed the exaggerated cooling to offset their exaggerated warming.

        So time passed and the skies became clear because of the clean air act and the Earth started warming again, not because of the removal of the coal dust, you see, but because of additional CO2. R-i-ight.

        They are double counting. The warming should have been from the removal of the cooling dust, but that would leave no room for CO2 as a warming agent, so the cooling was present only when things cooled, and removing the dust had zero warming effect. It was all-powerful CO2 that caused the warming, not the clearing of the cooling agent. It only works one way, you see.

        Then of course came the pause which wrecked both arguments. No more cooling, no more warming, increase in CO2 globally and increase in dust in northern China, Mongolia and other big Asian cities. But the CO2 was the standout. Massive AG emissions and no warming, and the dust wasn’t global at all. Plus it got warmer in China and Mongolia under all that cooling dust. Mother Nature is a feisty sort.

        Now the dust is being comprehensively addressed in China. What will happen? Cooling of course! The Clear sky at night causes massive cooling that used to be warmed by back radiation from dust!! You gots to understand the one-way nature of nature.

        What a crock. The whole story. Cooling and warming dust with blazing CO2 that produces no change in temperature. The claim that there was no scare in the 70’s about cooling is false. The claim that the scare was about cooling dust is false. The claim made later on that the cooling was caused by dust is true but the claim was of course, false. The claim that the temperature records for the period 1940-1970 were not dramatically altered is true. They were in fact altered. The claim that dust from coal burning is a powerful cooling agent is false, but is made repeatedly. The claim that CO2 is a powerful warming agent is false. The claim that water vapour trails from aircraft cause powerful cooling is true – witness the 1 deg C rise in th USA on 12 Sept 2001.

        Some people don’t like Marc Morano. I get it. I think he is, as Obama said last night, “on the right side of history”. He doesn’t have to be perfect, just on the right side of history. Obama doesn’t have to be perfect. He should get on the right side of history when it comes to Big Climate because it looks like he has been captured by the Suzuki Foundation For Fun and Profit. The environmental champions of the seventies are gone and all we have left are the two thousand and teenie-weenies.

      • DavidA. Please tell me what you claim the scientists are now saying “never happened”. It is not the cooling, because scientists today say there was cooling (as proved by the quote I provided). It is not the scare, because scientists now say the media created a scare. It is not the fact that scientists knew about the cooling and were concerned, because that is acknowledged in the 7 or 8 papers worrying about global cooling. Just what is it that you think happened that the scientists of today say did not happen?

        Trying to sort it out from posts about UHI and MWP and lots of other stuff makes it difficult. Are you saying that although the scientists today acknowledge there was cooling from 1940-1970, the cooling was actually greater than the scientists acknowledge? If this is your point it is not very important to this argument (although it may be important more generally), and certainly does not constitute “never happened”.

        Or are you saying that scientists today do not acknowledge there was cooling? If that is your point you are wrong.

        Or do you have another claim?

      • seaice1 April 26, 2016 at 5:51 am,

        Stop digging. Look up the August 1974 CIA paper I cite above and read it. It is contemporaneous.

        It details who was saying what and where. It lists institutions. It identifies scientists and the various climate approaches at the time. It specifies what the science did not know in the mid-70s, and the concern for the US government (which was crops not CO2, drought, feeding the world’s growing population, and preventing global social unrest). There are four pages of papers listed in the bibliography. That’s more than the 10 you claim, and not one of them was about global warming.

        Moreover, the CIA paper proves you’re factually wrong. Unfortunately, I have to agree with other commenters who are speculating about your age; you seem neither sufficiently mature yet to resist the hyperbole being thrown at your generation nor able to investigate historical data dispassionately on your own.

      • “Seaice, as demonstrated by EVERY MAJOR climate organization at the time, including government organizations like the CIA and by the global surface records AT THE TIME, you are wrong, Marc Morano is correct.”

        No seaice1 is correct as this graphic from the Peterson 2008 paper proves.

        Try posting up data instead of hand-waving with self-references (WUWT).
        Only counts for the denizens to cheer at my friend – so why bother?
        You are all convinced anyway are you not?

        Oh, of course it’s part of the scam! Silly me. (sarc)

      • Tony, you have ignored every criticism of that poor report. You and seaice have ignored every link to the disparate major climate organizations of the globe, all of them endorsing the ice age scare. You have ignored numerous personal reports from those who lived through the times. Reason has forsaken you both.

      • “It details who was saying what and where. It lists institutions. It identifies scientists and the various climate approaches at the time. It specifies what the science did not know in the mid-70s, and the concern for the US government (which was crops not CO2, drought, feeding the world’s growing population, and preventing global social unrest). There are four pages of papers listed in the bibliography. That’s more than the 10 you claim, and not one of them was about global warming.”
        I give a fairly detailed analysis of the CIA report below. What it does not do, nor did it attempt to do, was detail who was saying what and where. The CIA paper is not a review of the science. It is about concerns of the intelligence community.

        Not one about global warming? I seriously doubt you have read them all. The first paper I looked at from 1969 in the bibliography was partly about warming due to man made emissions and concluded that “man’s increasing industrial activities could lead to a world much warmer than today”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281969%29008%3C0392%3AAGCMBO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
        You cannot honestly say that scientists did not think that global warming was a possibility.

      • seaice1 says:

        You cannot honestly say that scientists did not think that global warming was a possibility.

        It never sems to sink in that skeptics do not dispute global warming. It’s a natural effect, as the planet recovers from the LIA. Global warming is a fact. Are we all together on that?

        On the other hand, the conjecture that global warming is caused in any measurable way by the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2 has been falsified repeatedly. For one thing, global warming is rising in the same steps, and at exactly the same rate now as it has in the past, before CO2 emissions were a factor:

        That data was collected by arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones. It clearly falsifies the CO2=cAGW conjecture.

        Since CO2 is not a measurable forcing, and since CO2 is obviously not the ‘control knob’ of global temperatures, the alarmist crowd’s entire argument is debunked.

        But then, you’re not a scientific skeptic, just a true believer. So facts, logic, evidence, common sense, and rational thinking make no more difference to you than a rainstorm makes to a duck.

      • dbstealey. Please read the comment you reply to. It says “due to man’s increasing industrial activity we may have a warmer world” Not natural warming at all.

      • The comment I replied to was:

        What many scientists feared in the 1970s was a prolonged cooling period…

        “Many”. Understand? Not “all”.

        You can only get close to “all” in science if you’re John Cook, with his bogus “97%”.

      • dbstealey. You are grasping at straws now. This was back in 1969 – a time when we are being told that all climate scientists were predicting an ice age. This one paper proves that not all climate scientists were saying that back then. This was not the only paper I could find after looking at loads of them. This was the first paper chronologically that was in both the CIA bibliography and the Peterson paper. Since people were criticising that one I had a look at the original source.

      • seaice1,

        No one said “all” were predicting anything. There is always a range of opinions. But I was working in a closely related field (designing, calibrating, testing, etc. weather related instruments), and the vendors sent us the current literature, gratis.

        You’re probably too young to remember it, but the Ice Age 2.0 scare was just as nutty as the global warming scare, and if there was even 5% of the grant money being shoveled into the global cooling scare as is being poured into the AGW alarm now, we would be arguing with the same alarmist crowd about why global warming is just a manifestation of global cooling.

        The whole DAGW scam is money-driven. The Climategate emails showed that conclusively. As you mature, you will begin to see things in perspective. Right now, it’s difficult because you’ve decided, and since you’re no kind of a skeptic at all, you can never admit that scientific skeptics are right. If/when you grow up, you’ll understand.

      • dbstealey. Why don’t you read the CIA paper? This says that the climate at the time was poorly understood and it was a priority to put more resources into study in that area. It outlines 3 climatology approaches and concludes that none of them were much use for making predictions at the time.

        You say that many scientists feared continued warming. After looking into the Petersen and the CIA report I think it would be fair to say that some scientists expected cooling and some scientists expected warming, but at the start of the 1970’s the state of the knowledge was very poor. The numbers of scientists in a position to make any claim was very few. By the end of the 1970’s many expected warming and few expected cooling.

        We all agree that there was cooling at this time. I think we can all agree that the reasons were poorly understood. Had this continued it would have become a major problem in a few years, as indicated in the CIA report. Thus potential cooling was an immediate threat. Had cooling stopped and warming started, as did happen, then this would have become a problem only decades in the future. Warming was not an immediate threat in the same way cooling was. It was therefore fairly natural for the media to latch onto the possibility of cooling and create the scare. It was reasonable to fear cooling more than fear warming at the time, even if cooling was less likely. In the early 1970’s there was some justification for the scare because temperatures had been declining and nobody knew why.

        Pointing at the cooling scare provides no evidence for a problem within climate science. The scare informed people how poorly climate was understood and how important it could be. It was made a priority to understand it better. We have now done this and understand the climate much, much better than we did in the 1960’s. What is staggering about your position is that you believe that after decades of intense research and many millions of dollars (and Yen and Pounds and Euros) we do not understand the climate any better than we did in the 1960’s. You contend that we may even have gone backwards in our understanding of the climate. That is an astounding claim.

      • seaice1,

        You’re gettting demolished here. Your arguments amount to your opinion, supported (if you can call it that) by the neo-Nazi’s blog. As Anthony wrote upthread:

        For the record, “seaice1” is just plain wrong in his thinking and his argument. He’s doing little more than hand-waving.

        Hand-waving is about all that seaice1 has. Once more for the slow learners <–[seaice1]: there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened before, and to a much greater degree — both warming and cooling.

        Therefore, the Null Hypothesis remains un-falsified. What we're observing is simply the ebb and flow of natural variability. It has happened the same way whether CO2 was low, or high.

        seaice1 is desperately searching for some kind of evidence showing that human activity is the cause of what is only natural variability in a long term cycle. He fails, so he resorts to hand-waving. That may work at alarmist blogs. But here we need convincing evidence; the one thing that seaice1 consistently lacks.

      • dbstaeley. If you keep saying the same old tired arguments I will keep offering the same evidence against you. Lovejoy 2014 in a peer reviewed paper concluded that the warming up to that time was not within “natural” limits and he specifically rejected the null hypothesis.
        “Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels
        >99 %.”
        http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Lovejoy.Clim.Dynamics.final.online.2014.pdf

        Since then we have had record breaking global temperatures which will only strengthen the case against natural warming. I am not hand waving but citing proper evidence. All you have is opinion and hand waving. I have evidence.

      • seaice1,

        You have no credible evidence for your pseudo-science beliefs.

        Neither does Lovejoy. Here is the natural rise in global warming.

        As we se, there has been no acceleration, which falsifies the endless alarmist predictions.

        Therefore, you are WRONG.

        You are always wrong. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening despite you failed appeals to corrupted authorities.

        The real world tells the story, and that story flatly contradicts yoyr version.

        Either the real world is wrong, or you are wrong. That’s a no-brainer: you are wrong. QED

        All your hand-waving is over this:

        As Anthony says:

        For the record, “seaice1” is just plain wrong in his thinking and his argument.

        T’seaice1′, ake your anti-science nonsense to a blog that appreciates it. We don’t. Because you’re flat wrong.

    • Sooooooo burning fossil fuels in the 70s cooled the planet but burning those same fossil fuels heats the planet now?

      • James the Elder. Yes. It is simpler than it sounds. Burning fossil fuels containing sulfur produces sulfate aerosols that block sunlight and cool the Earth. These stay in the atmosphere for a few years tops. It also produces CO2 that warms the planet. This stays in the atmosphere for decades. The sulfates include supfuric acid – which causes acid rain. Largely because of acid rain there was a succesful move to reduce sulfur emissions. This meant that the sulfate aerosols reduced, and hence the cooling effect rapidly disappeared after the 1970s, but the warming effect continued.

        There is nothing contradictory in these events.

      • James the Elder

        Exactly. And the dust cooled the planet when created but removing it had no reverse effect.

        The lesson there (climate physics) is that emitting CO2 will warm the earth but reducing the concentration will not cool it.

        There is an outrageous publication that made its way into Nature Climate ‘Science’ from a Stanford PhD candidate ‘Diaz’ saying the the ‘social cost of carbon’ is as high as $212 per ton which justifies funding expensive technologies to mitigate it.

        Consider: the annual tonnage of CO2 times $212 times 100 years is more than the value of planet earth. She takes a 100 year horizon with an economic model and a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘coulds’. The usual nonsense.

        The EPA (updated 2015) has put a figure of $37 per ton as the social cost of carbon, but doesn’t include the social benefit of carbon on a similar basis. The economic benefit of the electricity generated producing that ton of CO2 is not subtracted with the same wide ranging definitions. What Diaz does is say that the economic benefit compounds over the years and rises to $212. On the same basis, the cumulative benefit of the energy produced looking forward a century is large too.

        They analyse the SCC as an analysis of a business when you look at income only, and not the cost of production. The latitude granted for ‘costs’ must of course be granted to ‘benefits’.

      • It also produces CO2 that warms the planet. This stays in the atmosphere for decades.

        More blithely pulling stuff straight out of your behind without thinking.

        First of all, it has not been definitively established that CO2 warms the planet. You can write it, but so what? That’s what the scientific argument is about: whether it does and to what degree. Whoever figures it out gets a Nobel. There are 102 models roaming around trying to establish this. When they get the answer, there will be one model, like gravity has, and it will be replicable and be able to predict. None, repeat none, of that is possible today.

        Secondly, “stays in the atmosphere for decades?” Oh really? The first IPCC report stated that CO2 had a shelf life of 2-3 years. Now it’s “decades?” But more importantly, how could they know? What scientific machine exists to determine, Hey! this is a natural CO2 molecule, and this one is from Saudi oil? Does. Not. Exist. The amount of CO2 goes up and down in a year like a toilet seat. It depends on what the plants are eating.

      • Crispin, the economic benefit is sorted out by the market, so of course it is not included in the social cost. Economists have long known about externalities, which are costs and benefits that are not included in the price of a good. Externalities result in deadweight loss and hence economic inefficiency. The social cost is such an externality. Adjusting the price to take account of the externality restores the efficiency of the market, at least if all else is equal. Reality is more complex.

      • seaice1

        “…the economic benefit is sorted out by the market, so of course it is not included in the social cost.”

        Excuse me? You must think we are cretins. The social benefit of carbon is the present society in which we live. It is a carbon economy. The economic benefit is a fraction (large) of that net social benefit.

        “Economists have long known about externalities, which are costs and benefits that are not included in the price of a good. Externalities result in deadweight loss and hence economic inefficiency.”

        The social cost of carbon has to be balanced against the social benefits of carbon. There is no point in trying to separate the social benefit from the economic benefit which forma a part of the total social benefit.

        “The social cost is such an externality.”

        You are not making sense. Please rewrite.

        “Adjusting the price to take account of the externality restores the efficiency of the market, at least if all else is equal. Reality is more complex.”

        I use the word carefully: Rubbish. You are incorrectly trying to discuss economic externalities in economic terms. Economic impact is an externality of the social cost or benefit. You literally have it backwards. The argument you are trying to sell in the inchoate claim that carbon dioxide can create social costs but no social benefits.

        Why is this argument tossed around so frequently when it has so much stick attached to it? Because those making it know full well that the social benefits of “carbon” far exceed any imaginable costs.

        If anyone in the USA doesn’t know what is ‘being done in their name’ here is the link:

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf

        If anyone want to read a student’s interpretation of mights and maybes and coulds, look in that junk science rag, Nature Climate Science where fantastical plans about making money out of shibboleths abound.

      • seaice1

        To further undermine your claim that social benefits of carbon are not to be considered, here is a quote from the document linked above:

        “Since the reduced need for space heating represents a benefit of climate change in the model, or a negative damage, this change will increase the estimated SCC.”

        Thus the Whitehouse recognises in principle the positive contributions of ‘carbon’ in the document on the social costs. It is just that nearly all the benefits are omitted in order to skew the calculus towards baseless alarm.

        This CAGW nonsense is being promoted by people who are literally thankless in their recognition of the contribution carbon has made to the development and well-being of humanity.

      • Crispin.

        Of course positive externalities are included in the social cost of carbon. Fertilisation and reduced heating are positive externalities and they are included by reducing the social cost. Damage is a negative externality and is included by increasing the social cost.

        Take something else, like hats in a perfect market. Manufacturers will make and sell hats and the perfect market will ensure that the number and price of the hats is as good as it could possibly be. The benefits to consumers and manufacturers is as high as it is possible to get (in the perfect market). Otherwise the price and volume would change until is was at optimum. That is called economic efficiency. If we were to calculate the social cost of hats in this perfect market it would be zero. All the downsides are perfectly balanced by the upsides. Consumers get the benefit of hats at exactly the rate they value hats. Manufacturers produce hats at exactly the rate that it is just worth them doing so rather than doing something else. I don’t know how to put this more clearly. In a perfect market social costs are zero and the market is efficient. The social cost is zero, but hats still provide significant benefits to consumers manufacturers and retailers. These are the economic benefits and should not be confused with the social benefits.

        Now introduce an externality. That is a cost or benefit that is not already included in the price. The obvious example of a negative externality is pollution. The hat factory dumps toxic material that causes damage to people. These people are not the hat buyers, so this does not affect the price of hats. If the market were perfect these costs would be included in the manufacturing costs for the hats. The factory would compensate the pollution victims at exactly the rate the victims were happy with, the price of hats would go up accordingly and the volume of hat sales would go down accordingly until efficiency were restored and the social costs were zero.

        In our imperfect market the victims of pollution are not compensated by the factory. The costs they bear are not included in the price. The volume of hat sales is unaltered and the market is no longer efficient. This market produces more hats than would be produced by a perfect market.

        The social cost is that borne by the pollution victims. We do not include the benefits hat wearers get from the hat. We do not include the employment in the hat factory. We do not include the benefits provided to retailers. All of that is already included in the price of the hat. That is the beauty of the market.

        When calculating social cost we look at those costs and benefits that are not already included in the price.

        So the social cost of carbon does not include anything that is included in the price, such as the benefit manufacturers get from using the fuel they buy or the benefit motorists get from buying gasoline. That is included in the price.

        The social cost does include benefits to third parties that did not pay for the fuel. So global warming reduces the heating costs for people that did not buy the fuel. That is a positive externality. CO2 in the atmosphere increases crop yields for farmers that did not buy the fuel. That is a positive externality. Rising sea levels flood houses of people that did not buy the fuel. That is a negative externality. We must add up all the positve and negative externalities to arrive at the social cost. Your quote demostrates that the positive externalities are not excluded, but are very much a part of the calculation.

      • MRW (April 26, 2016 at 9:03 am above) says to ‘seaice1’:

        More blithely pulling stuff straight out of your behind without thinking.

        That’s what he always does.

        That was an excellent comment, MRW. ‘seaice’ will never admit it because it demolishes his argument, but AGW is still only a conjecture. CO2=AGW has yet to make an accurate prediction.

        ‘seaice1’ believes, and that’s enough for him. But it’s not nearly enough for scientific skeptics.

        Neither seaice1 nor any other alarmist has any skepticism. They all believe. But without skepticism, there is no science. It’s just belief.

        That’s the difference between scientific skeptics — the overwhelming number of readers and commenters here — and unskeptical believers in the “carbon” scare. Skeptics are honest. The others… not so much.

    • seaice0:

      “…Climate scientists believe that the primary cause of this mid-century cooling…”

      Ah yes, the “Climate scientists believe” phrase that gives climate scammers absolute license to pretend knowledge they do not have.

      Climate scientists can believe anything they want.
      Models are not evidence.
      Beliefs are not reality.

      Thread circular sophistry a specialty of yours?

      • ATheok. Since the original claim was about what scientists believe (or say they believe), that is “now they say that never happened” it is not circular reasoning to talk about what scientists believe. Getting it wrong a speciality of yours.

    • seaice1 … this is the paper (peer-reviewed and all that) by Peterson, Connelley, Fleck that claimed that the coming ice-age scare never happened, at least as far as ‘science’ is concerned. What the authors of the paper say, however, is completely different from the content of the actual papers they listed. A year or two ago, I searched out and managed to find a couple of them and they were ‘disappointing,’ to say the least, at least from an alarmist’s point of view. Apparently, the authors never intended anybody to actually read the referenced material.

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

      CONNELLEY is the well-known William Connelley of Wikipedia infamy … the obsessive Wiki ‘editor’ and ‘revisionist historian.’

      • seaice1 … no I can’t. I didn’t save the couple I looked at. I do know that one (maybe both) that I got hold of was by Idso and Brazel (1977 and/or 1978). It was the name Idso that piqued my curiosity, cuz Idso is a rather well-known as a so-called skeptic.

        The only thing I remember with any clarity is that one of those papers discussed a small, informal survey he took of about 2 dozen scientists … a small majority said they predicted warming, rather than cooling. Hardly scientific or definitive enough to support the strident claim made by Connelley and Co. I didn’t bother to research any further … I figured the rest of the paper was just as weak.

        I have one other vague memory and it had to do with part of the paper in question. You would have to read it in depth to figure it out. But, as I recall, one author claimed CO2 would cause cooling, but Connelley and Co included their work in the ‘Warming Papers’ column of the chart on page 8/13 (p. 1332).

        As sloppy as that paper appeared to be (obvious propaganda, no attempt at objectivity), I wouldn’t take seriously anything in it, nor anything written by any of the authors.

        Don’t know if you’ve been made aware of this research paper, which concerns security issues raised about the projected global cooling, written by the CIA in 1974.
        http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

        I was in my 30’s during the Coming Ice Age scare. It was in the news almost daily … newspapers, magazines, TV (including documentaries), radio. And I tend to get a bit riled when people try to tell me that it didn’t happen. Yes, no doubt the media blew it out of proportion (just like they do today with the global warming scare), but the information they were passing on to us were direct quotes from prominent scientists … some of whom are now saying the opposite. Just how many times are we supposed to fall for this kind of crap, anyway?

        There’s an old saying … Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

      • teapartygeezer. Thanks for the link. I will look at it. I am not saying that there was not a scare. I am saying that the scare did not represent a consensus of climate scientists at the time.

      • seaice1 … there’s that same old canard, again … SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

        ‘Scientific consensus’ didn’t exist until Al Gore’s strident claim, “the debate is over, the science is settled.’ In the 1970’s, before climate science was politicized, nobody talked about ‘scientific consensus’ … EVER! That’s a made-up term, as is the consensus itself. It doesn’t exist except in the minds of people with a political agenda.

      • teapartygeezer -have we reached agreement then? There was no scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970’s?

      • seaice1 says … “have we reached agreement then? There was no scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970’s?”

        That response loses you any semblance of credibility.

        And in case you missed Ed Bo’s comment, I will repeat it for you. Apparently, he spent considerably more time vetting the PC&F ‘myth’ paper than I did. Here is what he found …

        Take a close look at that ametsoc paper, what it actually says deep in the paper, and take the time to look at the papers it cites. You will find that it is not at all how people represent it, and even how it represents itself in the abstract.

        First of all, it evaluated papers on whether they looked at potential warming effects or cooling effects, not whether they predicted the earth would warm or cool. This is actually admitted deep in the paper.

        Second, if the paper even considered a possible warming effect, it was counted as a ‘warming’ paper, even if it also considered possible cooling effects. Each one of the first six cited ‘warming’ papers I examined directly considered possible cooling effects at least as much, but were not even counted as ‘neutral.’

        It is a spectacularly dishonest piece of science, but it did its political job brilliantly, as it is repeatedly used to shut down discussion of the 1970s ‘global cooling scare.’

        Logically, you ought to ask yourself … if ‘global warming’ was the scientific consensus (or, at least, the majority opinion) in the 1970’s, where were all those scientists back then? Why didn’t we hear from them? They should have been making a concerted effort to counter all that false information in the media … shouldn’t they? Were they struck mute for several decades after which they finally found their collective voices???

      • Teapartygeezer. Some comments on the CIA paper.
        There is a big problem with this. It is an anonymous report and not a scientific paper. Unfortunately it is not properly referenced, so it is almost impossible to check the original sources. It has a bibliography, but the text does not contain references. For example, there is mention of Kutzbach on p24 in relation to figure 8. There is one reference for Kutzbach in the bibliography section, but that paper does not contain the figure in the report.
        http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/098/mwr-098-09-0708.pdf
        Where did the figure come from? Who knows? What part of the paper used the information from Kutzbch 1970? Who knows?

        The Wisconsin study is used extensively, but has no reference. What is this study? The Wisconsin study apparently looks at what would happen if temperatures drop, but it does not say that the study predicted temperatures would drop. Can we check? Not unless we can find the Wisconsin study, but it is not referenced.
        That said, the document is still good for seeing what the CIA was concerned about, even if it not much use to see what the scientists were concerned about. We could assume a correspondence, but that is not certain.

        It says that most meteorologists in the 1960’s could find no justification for believing there was systematic climate change underway. That is, most meteorologists did not believe there was global cooling or imminent ice age in the 1960’s
        p16. Scientists from the recreating past climate school were said to be quite certain that northern latitudes would be ice-bound in 2500 years unless man could influence the climate.
        One study is mentioned – the Wisconsin study. This apparently predicts a return to “little ice age” conditions but there is no direct quote and no indication of confidence.
        The San Diego conference of 1974 concluded that there was climatic change taking place and we would not soon return to previous conditions. They also said that they could not make any long term forecasts as they had too little understanding of the climate.
        From the conclusions it is apparent that the CIA was concerned about global cooling and had apparently not considered global warming. This was sensible because cooling was an imminent threat whereas warming would be much longer term. In terms of security, warming was not an immediate issue, and that may be why they ignore the evidence for warming. It was simply outside their remit.

        Comparing to the Peterson paper, before 1974 there are only 17 papers. Four were said to be cooling and 7 were said to be warming and 6 neutral. This suggests a roughly even split at the time the CIA report was written. It was only as the decade progressed that the warming came to dominate according to Peterson.

        The first author in Peterson included in the CIA report is Sellers 1969. This concludes in the abstract that “that a decrease of the solar constant by 2–5% might be sufficient to initiate another ice age, and that man’s increasing industrial activities may eventually lead to a global climate much warmer than today.” However, the CIA report does not seem to mention the warming at all, a curious omission unless they were not considering warming as a non immediate threat.
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281969%29008%3C0392%3AAGCMBO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

        So whatever you think of the Peterson paper, we have here definitive proof that climate scientists did believe warming was possible as early as 1967.

        A picture is emerging. Before 1974 there were not many papers on the climate – it was a huge thing to understand. The few scientists working on it had started to understand that CO2 was rising and that perhaps this could warm the Earth. This was uncertain. However, it had been observed that temperatures had been dropping for 20 years or so and this was more certain. There was a genuine and realistic fear that the temperature drop would continue with disastrous consequences. As the 1970’s progressed in became increasingly clear that the warming that had been speculative in the early part of the decade was actually the dominant forcing. It was only later that the cooling could be assigned to aerosols and not the onset of a period of “natural” cooling.

        So who is right depends very much on the details.
        1) There was a scare based on observed temperature drop. This was shared by some climate scientists.
        2) There was not a consensus of climate scientists that cooling would continue. Some said yes, at least as many said no.
        3) There were very few climate scientists at this time and the climate was known to be very poorly understood.

        People remember the scare, so its existence cannot be denied. However, it is clear that there was no consensus among the few climate scientists there were at the time.

        The story is one of science doing exactly as it should – following the evidence. There was a genuine scare based on very limited understanding. Scientists studied it, discovered that the scare was groundless. This story is not one that reflects badly on climate science.

      • seaice1 …

        Some comments on the CIA paper.
        There is a big problem with this. It is an anonymous report and not a scientific paper.

        That is really grasping at straws, isn’t it? Of course it’s not a scientific paper … it’s a report created by the CIA, based on reports by various scientists, which they reference meticulously. It’s from 1974, before the internet enabled links to original sources.

        Much of the rest of your (loooong) comment looks like a lot of cherry-picking. And as far as the PC&F paper, I would like to point out that it is very easy to miss something that you’re not looking for.

      • Teapartygeezer. The fact that it is a report and not a paper is not the point I was making. Had it been a paper then different standards would have been used. For example, a paper is expected to begin with an introduction that summarises the state of the science comprehensively. Any obvious omissions will be picked up in peer review. In an internal report we would not expect the same. The fact that it is not referenced like a paper makes it very difficult to check sources. That is the point.

        “which they reference meticulously.”

        They absolutely do not. They include a bibliography which is a very different thing from a meticulous referencing. That is a list of reading matter and it is not indicated in the report which source contributed to which part of the report.

        “It’s from 1974, before the internet enabled links to original sources.”

        Of course I was not expecting links to original sources. That is not done in scientific papers either. If it were a scientific paper we would have something like
        “The Wisconsin Study said that global food production could not be sustained (Bloggs et al 1967).”
        In the reference list we would see something like:
        Bloggs, A; Smith, B. Wisconsin Study: The effect of Cooling Temperatures on Food Production. Journal of Made Up Studies, vol6, 1967.
        We could the go to that source to see what it said.

        Since this was not a scientific paper they can use whatever system they like. They chose to use a bibliography, which is just a list of publications they might or might not have used in the compilation of the report. It is not wrong per se, but it does make it difficult to check sources.

        I tried to be objective in my summary. I did say that the report is only concerned with cooling, which is pretty much the point I though you were making. I also point out that since it is not a scientific paper we should not expect that the same conventions would apply. From the bibliography we know that they were aware of at least one paper that said industrial emissions could cause warming, yet there was no mention in the report. I suggest a reason for this. Because of the lack of referencing we do not know which part of the report used this paper, if any.

        As for the PC&F paper, I am not sure what I could have missed by not looking. I looked at one paper that said it was a warming one and it did indeed say the world could warm due to emissions. This proves that soem scientists were predicting warming back in 1969, and suggests that the paper, whatever its flaws does support the claim that there was not a consensus on cooling.

      • seaice0,

        Give it up, junior. The bottom line is that you and every other climate alarmist has been flat wrong.

        But don’t take my word for it. That’s the judgement of Planet Earth, which contradicts your falsified belief system.

        And you never answer this question:

        Who should we believe? You?

        Or Planet Earth?

        Because you can’t both be right.

        Observations contradict the alarmist Narrative. Are the observations wrong? Or are you wrong?

        Both cannot be right.

      • Why is it we continue to argue these two points:

        1) That “global waming” has been observed in geologic time using the best measurements we have available, which is not saying much of anything. It’s generally held that Ice no longer covers the northern hemisphere as we suspect it may have 10,000 years ago. Precision any higher than that is purely laughable.

        2) Scientific “consensus” as reveled by opinion poll is purely useless and has nothing at all to do with science. True scientific consensus is demonstrated by repeatable experiments, of whith there are none in the climate “science” discipline.

        Those ought really to be ground rules for any discussion on this topic. Constantly being dragged back into debating whether or not the Earth might be warmer now than it was during the last ice age is frustrating and the sign of a juvenile investigator of the topic; that is not the issue.

        It doesn’t matter one wit if most scientists believed the earth was entering a new ice age 40 years ago; most people did. Now they don’t. This demonstrates the fickle nature of the general population, the desire of news outlets to sell advertising, and the dearth of actual scientific evidence one way or the other.

    • “The Peterson Connolly and Fleck paper: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 was little more than a transparent attempt to make it look like this never happened.”
      ~AW~

      Nonsense. The “scare” was media driven. The science of that time did not support the “cooling scare”. PC&F were exactly right to document that fact. Do you have other serious research papers, not identified by PC&F, to back your contention, Anthony?

      • John@EF,

        Not that old canard again.

        I was working at a large tech company during the cooling scare of the ’70’s. Instrument vendors provided the latest literature as a courtesy. There were constant references to global cooling then, just like there are references to global warming now. The only difference is that now the references are constant and everywhere because of all the grant money involved.

        Maybe you’re just a kid, I don’t know. But I do know that the cooling scare of the ’70’s was ubiquitous. And rather than being “media driven”, the media was picking up on what scientists were saying (start at 5:45, 12:30, 12:55, 20:35, etc., to hear what the scientists were saying). So you’ve got that backward, too.

        Even Stephen Schneider (the same guy who advocated lying, if it’s in a ‘good cause’, ie ‘Noble Cause CORRUPTION’) bought into the 1970’s global cooling scare. Now it’s the global warming scare — and just as bogus.

      • John@EF … I doubt very much that you did more than scan the PC&F paper. READ the thing! Then search for the papers they reference and READ those, too. They do not support the PC&F claim.

        Then there is this 1974 report prepared by the CIA, who was concerned with the security issues of global cooling. Please note the bibliography at the end of the report … dozens of scientific reports referenced.
        http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

      • Well Stealey, I do not know how many times this can be said before it actually sinks in … nobody is denying there wasn’t sensationalized media focus of a “cooling scare”. The problem for you is that the actual climate science of that time did not support that media fear-mongering. Now, you and Anthony can cry and whimper all you want about Peterson, Connolly and their AMS paper, but the fact remains that the research papers are all listed and categorized. If you feel they were mis-categorized, you have every right to review them for yourself … same goes for Anthony. Of course that would rob you of the opportunity to cry about AMS paper, and about Peterson and Connolly … and you may find you don’t like the result … thus identifying who is doin’ the hand waving and sophistry is clear.

      • John, clearly they did read the critiques of the paper you reference, and looked at the paper misrepresented in that report. Clearly you did not.

      • What is the point? In the 1970’s the world had been cooling for a couple of decades. Climate science was in its infancy. Are you saying that because some scientists in the 1970’s were concerned about continuing cooling, and that turned out to be wrong, we should reject the entire field?

        The only genuine concern is that policy is based on the best science. At the time it appeared a possibility that the world was cooling, although nobody could be sure. So what was the policy? To spend more money on climate research to find out what was really going on. Read the CIA report. That is exactly what they recommended. “Only few academic centers in the USA are engaged in training in this field, which suggests we have a limited chance of solving the intelligence communities problem unless decisive action is taken.”

      • John@EF April 26, 2016 at 11:53 am,

        The problem for you is that the actual climate science of that time did not support that media fear-mongering.

        Incorrectamundo. The 1974 CIA paper says you’re wrong, definitively, and it was contemporaneous with the known science at the time. (seaice1’s B.S. about the lack of direct references in the CIA paper is laughable and a diversion. He obviously has no idea how internal CIA docs are prepared, or why. Their analysts are expected to get the facts right; the nation’s security depends upon it. They fail, the nation loses. Even if politicians lie to the People about what the CIA finds and claim otherwise. CIA worker-bee analysts are excellent and highly intelligent experts. Internal planning docs are written specifically for generalists.)

        Further, you have your timeline wrong. Messrs. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck published their AMS article in September 2008. Nowhere in their article is there a single reference to the CIA study.

        It was Maurizio Morabito who in 2009 located a copy of the CIA 1974 report on microfiche at the British Library, and published the fact. (Scroll up to see a copy or search my handle.)

        Messrs. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck knew nothing about it. Their library search for papers showed up what was available to them, but it was not complete. They did not find the thorough internal planning document the CIA prepared for national security and geopolitical purposes. You should read it.

        Further, I remember the global cooling fear very well. I was in school. We were not shown newspaper or Newsweek/TIME magazine reports. We had guest professors who described scientific papers.

      • MRW … another question has occurred to me. The CIA report referenced dozens of papers, most of which I presume discussed global cooling in one respect or another. How many of them were listed among the ‘Cooling Papers’ list in the PC&F paper. I could probably go back and cross reference them, but I will let someone else with more curiosity, and more energy than I have, take a stab at it.

        As Morabito noted in his excellent article …

        It’s easy to miss what you do not look for.

        http://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/12/the-cias-global-cooling-files/

      • teapartygeezer April 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm

        It’s easy to miss what you do not look for.

        One of the best quotes from The Big Short, too. ‘If you don’t look, you don’t find’.

        BTW thanks for the CIA paper link (Ditto Morabito’s article). I pulled all that stuff up from my own library, downloaded years ago when I didn’t bother to gather links. Sorry I didn’t read all the posts or I would have seen your links earlier.

        What the trolls here fail to appreciate is the state of media in the 1970s. Drumming up a phony media scare without the science to back it up would have been unthinkable in the decade of the Watergate investigation and the 1975 Church Committee. Playing fast and loose with the truth, entertaining to win eyes, or using overt emotion for propaganda, didn’t start until the 1985 deregulation of the business. Newsrooms were always sacrosanct, the loss-leaders of every broadcast outlet, their pride; 1985 forced them to be profit centers. All print journos wanted to be Woodward & Bernstein.

        The Peterson/Connelley/Fleck article is agenda-driven. And the trolls’ blind devotion here to their paper is proof of what PCF were trying to achieve. Looks as if Peterson’s Bachelor’s degree in Public Relations and Advertising came in handy.

      • “seaice1’s B.S. about the lack of direct references in the CIA paper is laughable and a diversion. He obviously has no idea how internal CIA docs are prepared, or why. ”
        The report is not referenced. It has a bibliography. Just look at it. It is neither bs nor a distraction. You cannot tell which item in the bibliography is used to support which bit of the report.

        “Messrs. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck published their AMS article in September 2008. Nowhere in their article is there a single reference to the CIA study.”
        Of course not because the CIA paper is not original research. It could never be included in a survey of original research.

        teapartygezer ” The CIA report referenced dozens of papers, most of which I presume discussed global cooling in one respect or another. How many of them were listed among the ‘Cooling Papers’ list in the PC&F paper.”
        That is what I did. I looked at one figure in the report and checked the reference that seemed to be related to it. That reference did not mention either cooling or warming. I then cross referenced the report with the Peterson paper. The first one in both war the 1969 paper concluding a warmer world was possible. I could see no reference to this in the CIA report. I do not believe that the majority of the papers in the CIA report discuss global cooling at all. I checked out two, one was neutral and one was pro-warming. On this evidence I suspect that the vast majority of the papers in the CIA report are nothing to do with either cooling or warming.

        MRW. “Drumming up a phony media scare without the science to back it up would have been unthinkable” Your confidence in 1970’s media is touching.

        [none of this matters, there was a 1970’s cooling scare, despite what you have decided to believe, give it up -mod]

    • This Solar Gloom cooling effect of particulate carbon and sulphates etc. within emissions did occur. This is what Hansen now believes caused the pause: – the recorded temperature rises were far lower than previously forecast by CAGW theory as a result of the cooling effect of the massive uncontrolled increase in particulate carbon and sulphates over the last 15-20 years from the massive and ongoing increases in Developing Countries’, mainly China’s, uncontrolled emissions. Hansen apparently never appreciated that this hard evidence and his belated attempt to use it to maintain the temperature/CO2 religious belief discredits the warmist theories. From the 50’s onwards, prior to the Developing World’s massive increase in emissions, the West had Clean Air Acts and later Anti-Acid Rain Regulations which very significantly decreased particulate carbon and sulphates emissions. In addition particulate carbon in the atmosphere is not like CO2 as it has a relatively short half-life.
      This means that Hansen now unwittingly accepts that the temperature rises recorded from the 50’s onwards have as much to do with reduction in particulate carbon and sulphates for the 30-40 years from the 50’s as the increase in CO2 levels. Take out the effects of the West’s reductions in particulate carbon and sulphate emissions and the later Developing World’s increase in such emissions and you get a much shallower temperature versus man-made CO2 relationship, i.e. we have had the relatively little AGW and not the massive CAGW that warmists believe. This is what very many scientists agree with and an effect on climate that can be far more easily, simply and cheaply accommodated and managed at a much later date well into the future. In other words, the vast £billions being spent and are still being spent dictated by the CAGW religion is totally unnecessary!

  5. Scroll down in the link to locate a theater near you if you. It may be easier to filter by state. My zip showed nothing, but Florida has 36 sites showing the movie and several close by. I can’t wait to see if there are any protesters who want to discuss anything at the movie :-)

    http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

  6. The nearest showing to me is thousands of miles away, in Toronto. If I had a passport I could ride my bike to the showing in Bellingham Washington. I should tell my 2 oldest brothers to go see it as they live in Washington state.

  7. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE — PURCHASE YOUR TICKETS FOR CLIMATE HUSTLE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE! If they say it is sold out and it is at least 1-2 days before the showing — ask the manager to move it to a larger auditorium. In fact — if they say it is even 1/2 full 1-2 days in advance, suggest that they move it!) I have had the privilege of screening the film and as a meteorologist that has specialized in climate much of my career and also a so-called “skeptic” I was VERY pleased with the film and urge everyone to see it. It is entertaining and yet LOADED with info!

    • Meteorologists should be complemented for not falling for the gobal warming hype, at least not publicly. You never hear your local forecaster attributing anything happening regarding the weather to human causes.

      Too bad other climate scientists are not as sober and measured as the meteorologists.

  8. The trailers look fantastic! I really want a copy of this film, so I hope when it’s released to DVD or BluRay that they’ll look to international sales as well. I’m in Australia!

  9. We climate change skeptics have long needed a film to counter “An Inconvenient Truth”. This may be it. I was honored to be asked to record the introduction of the movie for its May 2nd debut at 400 theaters, so I was provided a preview of the entire film. It is not made for scientists and political activists. It is designed to reach the general public including teenagers. It is my hope that in the years to come it will be shown just before or after Al Gore’s sci-fi epic in every school. I the meantime I will buy tickets and attend the showing at the nearest theater to my new home in Las Vegas. I hope it draws a crowd and holds and pleases the audience.

  10. Good to see the movie is playing in Toronto (Canada) May 2cd downtown. I’ll have to see if I can swing it. With a population of 5 million I am sure it will sell out. Tickets are available for pre-sale online already. Buy some and go enjoy (take a believer with you). I’d buy some tickets just to support the movie but I want those seats full in case I cannot attend. I am sure the crowd will loud an interactive – good times.

    • Duncan, I wonder if the Toronto Star “journalist” Catherine Porter will be reviewing the movie.

      • Clipe, thanks for the vid. Didn’t know if I ever like Ezra that much but he was great in this video. I am glad I am teaching my children to question. Every now an then, with no prompting from me they make fun of the socially acceptable facts of life (climate change, court cases, media and others). Point being critical thinking is a much more valuable life skill.

      • I was shocked to find out that the editor at The Toronto Star actually apologized to Ezra for the hit piece and wrote a column cutting down the reporters lies…

    • Don’t forget to complain to the cinema that it is too cold in the theater and to turn the A/C down, the fake butter on your popcorn is solidifying. Calling for 10C on May 2cd, should be about 16C this time of year in Toronto. Excuse me, 16.26013C to be accurate. Don’t want to be blamed for rounding down.

  11. It’s showing at my regular theater. I’m buying tickets, but first I’m going to see if I can round up a few others. I can reserve a block of seats at my local theater.

  12. Any chance us antipodeans will be able see the film? Will “Climate Hustle” DVDs be available for purchase?

  13. I bought my tickets a few weeks ago, looking forward to it.

    Al Gore only had 9 egregious scientific errors in his film (along with an untold number of statements that were just exaggerations), so as long as this film stays under that number it should be a success.

  14. Anthony, I may bump into you at the movie, as I am in the same town as you. I am absolutely looking forward to this event, and hope to see a good turnout. Thank you for your review.

  15. As much as I look forward to this movie, I can’t help but feel like the “goofy” and “laid-back” tone will cause people not to take it seriously. They’ll completely ignore what is being said and focus on the “well, this does seem too professional!” idea.

  16. Here in Fort Myers there are a 3d version and a standard version. Is the movie shot in 3D?
    Anyone?

  17. Y2K was not a hoax. Fixing it sucked up most of the loose American engineering talent for two years. That nothing of significance happened is due to those efforts.

    • Y2K was non existent. What you are talking about is a public facing scaremongering by the press. Furthered by cobol programmers obviously as they were the “experts” who told everyone doom was afoot unless they saved the world, seem familiar?

      The bottom line was it was a foreseen IT issue, the code need to be updated to accommodate new date values or often mitigate any affects the error might have.

      Such issues are faced every single day in the IT world, and often there are global issues.

      Blaster worm was a bigger issue than Y2K, yep, code created by a kid to save his dad’s PC repair business

      • As someone who spent several months rewriting sections of existing code in order to handle Y2K I can assure you that it was not a hoax. And no, it wasn’t in COBOL.

        The reason why nothing bad happened on Jan 1, 2000 was because 10’s of thousands of companies had spent billions of dollars in the preceding decade ensuring that nothing bad would happen.

    • The excuse “that it would have been a problem except for the warning and subsequent efforts” does not hold up for Y2K. Some companies poured big dollars and efforts, some negligible. Reporting of problems found did not show much of any significance. Third world, first world, spend a lot, spend a little – nothing much emerged.

      • This morning I drove to work and nothing bad happened to me.
        So obviously those who in the past complained about car and road safety were just cranks.

      • The obvious conclusion is that worrying works.
        99% of the stuff we worry about never happens.
        But for the careless, stuff goes wrong all the darn time.
        Lots of people worried about climate change, and for the first time in history, decades go by with no temp change.
        Lots worried about Y2K, and nothing happened.
        Everyone is worried about the National Debt, but nothing ever seems to come of it…we just keep borrowing more with no serious ill effects.

        QED…worrying works, like a charm.

  18. I bought 2 tickets. Haven’t been to a movie theater since 2003. I refuse to give my money to Hollywood.

  19. I have my ticket and I will be there. I invited my wife to go with me, but she wants to wait until we get a DVD and see it at home. Tough being an old fart.

  20. I remember the 70s. “The glaciers are coming! The glaciers are coming!” It was the assured result of modern science. If there was anyone at all thinking about global warming at the time, even university students learning about ocean physics (like me) never got to hear about it. I understand USAns young people were scarred by the fears of the Cold War. Well, you could appease the Russians but you couldn’t appease the Frost Giants. I really believed what I was told about global cooling, and some fears stick with you.

  21. “Through the film, there’s a rapid fire series of comparisons throughout the film that illustrate the failure of claims, by using the claims themselves. Morano doesn’t need to spin anything, because when you just look at the claims, counterclaims, the contradictions, and the outright failures of the predictions about sea ice, boiling oceans, species extinction, heat waves, rising sea levels, worsening weather, and dozens of other things, you can’t help but come away laughing.”

    I think that says it all. In the simplest terms, they doomsday predictions failed and now they’re changing their story. That should be enough for the average person on the street.

    Of course, Climategate should have been too.

  22. Checked my local theater, $16.50 per person! Sorry, but I would rather spend that for the DVD.

  23. Chris,

    According to analyst Rakesh Arora the energy cost, per tonne, for UK steel is $200 whereas the cost to China is as little as $10 per tonne. While a cheap labour force may well have something to do with reducing the cost of production in China are you honestly going to tell me that the UK isn’t disadvantaged by paying up to 20 times more in the cost of energy compared to it’s Chinese rivals? Have you stopped to think that the cheapness of Chinese steel production, of which the difference in energy cost is substantial, may go some way to explaining why there is a glut in steel production and is the reason why the price has fallen through the floor? How can the UK steel industry compete with that?

    The double whammy is that the steel glut isn’t just down to the Chinese. The dead hand of the EU is making itself felt too. In February, this year Germany produced 3,362 thousand tonnes of steel to UK’s 379 thousand tonnes. France produced 1,317 thousand tonnes, Itally 1,928 tonnes and Spain 1.087 thousand tonnes. Then there’s the UK business rates, up to 10 times higher than either Germany or France. How can the UK steel industry compete with that?

    You won’t find the answers on either the Grauniad or Al Jabeeba websites. They don’t want to talk about the herd of elephants in the room. It’s all the fault of the Chinese you see. Nothing to see here, Move along please.

  24. Big mistake involving Sarah Palin in the promotion.It
    assures that no left wingers will take this film seriously.

    • Correction, no one is taking this movie seriously with or without Tundra Barbie. When it is under the guidance of a fossil fuel shill who couldn’t even debate or bet with Nye.and has been wrong on every issue and has no grasp of basic science … what point do you think the movie will have when it is sponsored by mendacious charlatans with no integrity? Let’s do this. Bring Morano and Watts to a public debate against two unknown climate science researchers under 40 years old in public with a panel of eminent climate scientists as judges and adjudicators … who would win?

      • Who would win? Watts and Morano would win, hands down.

        Alarmist scientists like Mann and Schmidt USED TO debate. But they lost every debate, so now they hide out behind their Twitter accounts and in their Ivory Towers, afraid to debate. Instead they let their eco-lemmings run interference for them on sites like WUWT.

        And recently, when Gavin Schmidt was invited to have an informal debate with Dr. Christy, Schmidt got up and walked off stage. He chickened out in public.

        Skeptics would LOVE to watch a series of debates with alarmists, held in a neutral venue with a mutually agreed Moderator. They would be recorded on YouTube for all the world to view. But the alarmist clique hides out from any more debates, having lost every one in the past. Now, they tuck tail and run.

        Maybe ‘Morose’ can convince Mann, Schmidt and a few others to man up and debate. Good luck with that.

      • Are you talking about Anthony Watts, who has no climate education, no research to speak of (beyond UHI which apparently from my assessment of his efforts didn’t work out as he predicted) or any peer-reviewed publications that I can find or another Watts? I’m assuming of course his résumé is accurate and current. Also, I cannot find a professional membership in any national science body of note that require tertiary education for him. The only reference I came across was him being referred to in a documentary film as a “Key Scientist” by Marc Morano which is either fraudulent or deceitful if the aforementioned is true. Let that sink in before you feel compelled to respond. And should you respond, explicate how you believe he became so knowledgeable about climate science without education and/or experience? Science not politics.

        I’m not sure you know what a skeptic is in science. Every scientist is a skeptic by nature. So, to be a skeptic in science one needs to educated, experienced and knowledgeable of the specific topic they’re being skeptical about. A Phd embryologist would not consider themselves a climate science skeptic but would say they were ignorant to discuss the topic beyond HS acumen. If you don’t have education combined with experience then one is ignorant and either believe what the scientists in the other fields report or read the consensus which will be a HS or college textbook. I have very little education and no experience to question the veracity of “that nociception cannot be processed until thalamic projections into the cortical plate have occurred at 23 weeks gestation” and believe that to be accurate based on the integrity of embryology researchers. If I didn’t agree with their findings then I’d be a non-believer not a skeptic. Research scientists.are mainly honest and dedicated people who thrive on solving and explaining natural phenomena, fraud happens but it is so very rare and most times it is eventually uncovered by other scientists.

        I notice reading many of your comments on a wide range of climate science topics that you have a proclivity for emotion and opinion rather than science. My observations, when you do attempt science or make a scientific comment, are that they’re often wrong, prejudiced or confused/muddled at best. You boldly proclaimed that this site had science. I’ve read several articles so far and my opinion, based on the evidence is that does not gel with your endorsement. Go to the article “Tracking climate change? Use the daily highs” … it is a good example of what I have observed so far. Less than 10% of the comments are scientifically germane and applicable to the topic. The rest are either off-topic, gibberish or opinion e.g. “Thank you for making a comment that allows me to disregard anything you have to say, about the atmosphere,” There is little true scientific banter and debate but a whole lot of bluster. Rather disappointing actually. I doubt Mann or Schmidt lost a scientific debate and would be interested in a citation or your source.

      • Bill Nye is a fake scientist – Perhaps, is it envy or jealousy that causes you to deny that Nye’s education résumé is stronger than Watts (or you apparently)? Facts, are very stubborn. You have had ample time and space to counter with knowledge and fact but instead resort to silliness.

      • ‘Prof. Lester C King’, AKA: ‘Morose’,

        Yep. Anthony Watts has forgotten more than you will ever learn about climate science. He has conducted a comprehensive, multi-year review of the USHCN Surface Station network and exposed its shortcomings, to the extent that it has been discredited due to the ±5ºC errors. He is also an internationally recognized climate expert, running the highest trafficked climate site on the internet. And he is a published, peer reviewed author.

        What are you? You’re just a multiple sockpuppet.

        I can’t speak for Mark Morano’s CV, but then, neither can you. Let that sink in before you feel compelled to respond.

        Next, I not only know what a scientific skeptic is, I also know that not one climate alarmist is a skeptic. Like most readers and commenters here, I am a scientific skeptic. You are not. Most readers here are skeptical of the measurement-free conjecture that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures — the central claim of the alarmist crowd. It is a claim without a single corroborating measurement.

        Next, you accuse me of being emotional, which is certainly a first. I’ve received numerous compliments regarding my objectivity, so I can only presume your psychological ‘projection’ is speaking for you.

        Next, you badmouth this excellent, award-winning “Best Science” site. But what’s the basis for your criticism? It’s your opinion, that’s all. With heavier site traffic than all alarmist blogs combined, your complaints are not only wrong, they’re pathetic.

        Finally, you opine:

        I doubt Mann or Schmidt lost a scientific debate and would be interested in a citation or your source.

        Then your reading comprehension sucks. I posted sources (three links) to debates won by skeptics over their un-skeptical opponents. The before and after numbers were given in two of them. Skeptics won the debates hands down, which is why alarmist scientists tuck tail and run from any new debates. Past debates showed they’ve got nothin’. Climate alarmists are debate losers.

        You also have nothin’ — nothing but your multiple screen names, trying to pretend you have more support than you do.

      • I’m not in the habit of responding to nescient gits who use insult and prejudiced feelings when discussing science. If you want to debate science, then act with integrity and display knowledge and a grasp of scientific principles, laws, and theory germane to the topic. That way, we both hopefully learn something if there is the evidence to support it. I will address your pleonastic jeremiad of opinion seriatim:

        • Ignorant opinion won’t create reality about Watt’s education or mine. Are you denying or confirming the contents of his published résumé on this site and elsewhere i.e. no tertiary education? Can you provide the citation for the peer reviewed article/articles published by Watts on USHCN Surface Station? I have found none using Google Scholar and other science search tools. It was and is a helpful exercise but apparently the results are neither groundbreaking nor worthy of publication in scientific journals. Billy Graham, was/is a very well recognized evangelical preacher, no one considers him an authority or academic scholar on biblical history and scripture. That does not detract from Graham’s standing in society but it gives him no credibility to evaluate or comment on the veracity of biblical research. Watts and Morano are more like the “Billy Grahams” of climate science.
        He is also an internationally recognized climate expertcare to share what accredited and/or international scientific body has bestowed this formal recognition on him. I have combed the memberships of NSF, AAAs, RGS, etc and find no such record or accord. Care to point or cite which scientific body recognizes his alleged skills, talents and expertise? Or is that just your evidence-free opinion?
        the highest trafficked climate site on the internet – meaningless metric/statistic and an equivocation fallacy. You are suggesting that the Intuit website with the highest financial and tax related traffic volume is by implication a valid source for research and study on complex financial and economics issues. Volume is no indicator of authenticity or veracity. Science is not a popularity contest, it is a very complex and challenging field requiring skills, experience and education that are found in less than 0.5% of the world’s population.
        • Baseless insults are not argument winners and detract from your credibility.
        I can’t speak for Mark Morano’s CV, but then, neither can you – that says more about your ignorance and incompetence which you, without any bases, fallaciously project on me. As a scientist and informed person I can read and comprehend any résumé without difficulty to establish a person’s credentials. If I have doubts I know who to contact or where to go for further evaluation. I suggest you do the same before falsely disparaging me due to your limitations and nescience. I have warned you about needless and unnecessary insults my credentials are not being debated.
        I not only know what a scientific skeptic is, I also know that not one climate alarmist is a skeptic.You clearly fail to understand what skepticism means in science. You are very competent at libelous and pernicious insult. I have explained to you what a science skeptic means. Ignoring definitions and parsing words to suit your prejudiced narrative is the wont of an insecure ignorant person expressing their jejune opinion clearly, which is meaningless.
        • I made no such accusations, you are very sensitive and apparently insecure. I expressed my opinion based on the evidence (your words). You provide no evidence to the contrary to support your contention. So I’ll retain my interpretation until presented with verifiable evidence that falsifies my interpretation of your comments to others.
        • I made no such accusations, you are again, very sensitive and apparently insecure and defensive about where you source your science knowledge. I expressed my opinion based on the evidence (comments). You provide no evidence to the contrary to support your contention that it is an award winning “best science site”, for science and specifically climate science, which I rebutted earlier in this rejoinder.. So I’ll retain my interpretation until presented with verifiable evidence such as the credentials of the award givers etc. that falsify my interpretation of the comments and science content of this site.
        • Again, you do not grasp what constitutes a scientific debate versus public opinion. Your links confirm that those were not scientific debates based on scientific fact and evidence but rather polemic opinion. The veracity of science is not determined by public consensus. Winning the public opinion and losing the scientific debate is an empiric victory as reality is a brutal force that annihilates ignorance. I have listened to skeptics like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and Curry debate their peers. They behave very differently when the audience is knowledgeable to when it is ignorant. I’ll just keep reading what (skeptic) scientists are researching and writing.

      • Thank you Miso. It is not my intention to obliterate but to debate based on evidence and fact. I don’t know this site well and posted a comment clearly stating my professional scientific opinion and that I don’t debate insults and non-scientific opinion. dbstealey has for whatever reasons beknown to him decided to interject his supercilious and vacuous opinion. Such defense mechanisms are always a red flag. I doubt he/she and I will not be having any constructive debate if that is typical of their behavior.

      • Miso, unfortunate for you that you’ve found no enjoyment. Keep searching, one day you might get lucky.

        And ‘Prof. Lester C King’, AKA, sockpuppet: ‘Morose’,

        I always act with integrity. You just don’t like having your feet held to the fire of scientific probity and veracity. Further, you continue to avoid the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. The failed conjecture that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures is central to the climate alarmists’ argument. But that conjecture has been thoroughly debunked by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.

        And just because you can’t locate our host’s name on any publications is due to your failure. Try again. And bringing religion into the discussion is not surprising, since climate alarmism is based on eco-religion, not on verifiable science.

        Next, our host has traveled the world speaking on behalf of scientific skepticism. As stated, no climate alarmist is a skeptic. You say traffic is not an indicator of scientific veracity. Maybe not, but this site is read by millions of folks with degrees in the hard sciences. It has won multiple awards as “Best Science” site, and “Best Science & Technology” site. You can try to denigrate those acheivements. But really, what have the blogs you frequest accomplished? John Cook’s ‘skepticalscience’, for example, is run by a neo-Nazi.

        Despite your bluster, I know very well what a skeptic is. And I know that alarmists are not skeptics, no matter how often you stamp your foot and insist otherwise. You make baseless claims, which are nothing but your opinion, while I post verifiable facts and observations. No contest.

        It’s amusing how you tap-dance around the fact that alarmist scientists run ‘n’ hide out from fair, moderated debates. They have lost every debate, as the links I posted show. But again, all you have is your opinion.

        What your argument comes down to is the usual ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ logical fallacy. The fact is that you cannot produce any measurements quantifying AGW — the central conjecture of the alarmist crowd.

        Is AGW 97% of global warming? No one knows.

        Is AGW 5% of global warming? No one knows.

        Is AGW 0.03% of global warming? No one knows.

        Your arguments are just ad hominem deflection. No facts, such as quantifying AGW with verifiable, testable measurements. Therefore, you’ve got nothin’.

        And now that we know your HE-RO is the odious Bill Nye, we really know you’ve got nothin’.

        heh

      • I always act with integrity.

        I will not continue a conversation with an uneducated, pompous, supercilious nescient git and a mendacious liar. However, I do appreciate you confirming that Watts is uneducated in the field of climate science or any science, has no publications and that he has no membership of any international science association or body. This is not a scientific site, you and Watts are frauds. Don’t bother commenting to me again, I will not respond. You are a charlatan or a pernicious fool. Pick one.

        [Left as he wrote it. Let each reader judge the writer accordingly. .mod]

  25. Exactly as I showed above; this ‘Morose/Lester King’ sockpuppet is nothing but a juvenile name-caller. If it weren’t for his desperate ad hominem insults, he would have nothing at all.

    He’s certainly got zero science to support his climate alarmism; his comments are merely psychological projection and insults. That doesn’t win a science argument. He’s just a typical hater, with no redeeming scientific value or credentials; a sockpuppet whose bluster and scant knowledge are one big FAIL. We like to discuss real science here, but commenters like that have nothing to discuss. All the credible facts, evidence, and observations are on the side of skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” eco-belief.

    It’s no surprise that skeptics have won the science debate. The sockpuppet’s comments are all the alarmist cult has; nothing but ad hominem bile and hatred. The reason is clear: basic impotence. He is incapable of winning a scientific argument. So it’s all ad hominem, all the time. That’s all he’s got.

    ‘Morose’ can’t handle it, so he tucks tail and runs — just like the Mann/Schmidt chicken duo. And once again, skeptics have kicked ass. We’re winning this debate because of commenters like “Morose” — who couldn’t produce a measurement of AGW if his life depended on it. ☺

    • No trophy for you but you get a participation ribbon for your hair. You come across, again as very insecure and delusional about your knowledge and skills resulting in tangential and off-topic, off-the-wall rants. I don’t write that as an insult but out of concern for your mental health well being. You should seriously consider seeking professional help before you do yourself or others an injury. Take our written communications with you as an example of your psychiatric issues – they clearly demonstrate that something ails you. I wish you all the very best and a speedy recovery.

      • Morose, for one who claims a science passion, you appear to have brought nothing to the table other than a lame attempt to marginalize those you disagree with through some sort of pathetic academic pissing contest.

        While I could certainly and favorably compare CAGW skeptical science experts with your CAGW proponent’s, I am not certain you know that truth is not dependent on human belief in it. It is the earth that is falsifying the CAGW proponents theory. It is your own comments, not in anyway cogent to CAGW debate, which disqualify your input as having any relevance.

      • David A,

        ‘Morose/Lester King’ wrote:

        I will not continue a conversation with an uneducated, pompous, supercilious nescient git and a mendacious liar.

        Since he continues the conversation, his labeling is self-negated. QED

        Of course, I’m neither insecure (quite the opposite), nor ignorant of this subject, nor delusional. At 68 and following an extremely successful career, I could hardly be linked to any of those ad hominem slurs.

        But what else does Lester have? He certainly lacks scientific credibility, or any data-based measurements to support his belief.

        You are also correct that scientific truth is not dependent on human belief; nor is any other truth, for that matter. The truth is not in ‘morose’. He steers clear of arguing that Planet Earth is not busy falsifying CAGW, because that is a verifiable observation, obvious to everyone: as CO2 continues its steady rise, global temperatures show no correlation.

        Finally, David A, you’re batting 1.000: As you note, Lester’s comments have no relevance to the “dangerous man-made global warming” conjecture. He clearly has no understanding of how very little evidence there is for AGW (and once again: I think AGW exists. But it is simply too minuscule to measure).

        So maybe sockpuppet Morose Lester, who “will not continue a conversation with…” (fill in th blanks), will swallow his petty insults long enough to either present any credible evidence he believes might support his CAGW belief system, or if he can, produce evidence showing that the debate results I’ve linked to are wrong. But that may be hard to do, since the before-and-after voting is a matter of record.

        Or, maybe morose Lester will will deflect to something like Sarah Palin. That’s always good for changing the subject, when someone like Lester lacks scientific chops.

  26. This is frustrating! I live in the UK and I really want to see this film. Want to buy it on DVD, too.

Comments are closed.