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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=5CdVQa0_pSs
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 fa
cts 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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here in Fort Myers there are a 3d version and a standard version. Is the movie shot in 3D?
Anyone?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/climate_hustle/?search=climate hustle
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.
I bought 2 tickets. Haven’t been to a movie theater since 2003. I refuse to give my money to Hollywood.
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.
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.
..Shot Down in Flames !! ( AC.DC ) Nice shooting mod ….LOL
“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.
Checked my local theater, $16.50 per person! Sorry, but I would rather spend that for the DVD.
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.
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:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bill-nye-whos-not-scientist-guy-wants-throw-manmade-climate-change-skeptics-slammer
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’.
http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Jeff%20Dunetz/science.jpg
heh
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]
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.
This is frustrating! I live in the UK and I really want to see this film. Want to buy it on DVD, too.