Bill Nye invokes the ‘Streisand Effect’ to promote ‘Climate Hustle’ Film

It looks like Bill Nye has just given Marc Morano’s film “Climate Hustle” a huge boost by bringing the Streisand Effect into full force.

Dennis Kuzara writes:

climate-hustle
It looks like Bill Nye has just given Marc Morano’s film “Climate Hustle” a huge boost by bringing the Streisand Effect into full force.
The “Streisand Effect” is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access the information is increased.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 lawsuit to remove “Image 3850″ of her beach front residence in Malibu, California and had only been viewed 6 times, resulted in the image being viewed about a half million times within a month.

Bill Nye, who wants to throw climate skeptics in the slammer, warns moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” And U.N. Climate Scientist Michael “The End of the Climate As You Know It” Oppenheimer has also condemned the film. He claims.“Marc is a propagandist”.

What better proof of what free Streisand Effect advertising produces than some of the comments on mrctv.org about Bill Nye’s warnings:
Verbotene Gedanken

Thank you Bill for alerting me to this important film.
I will be attending the first showing I can get to.
I’ll buy an extra ticket and leave it for you at the window.
John Williams

Agree! I didn’t know it was coming out on May 2nd. Mandatory attendance for my family!
Verbotene Gedanken

If Bill had just kept his mouth shut…
Smitty Werben Jaegerman Jansen

Like any leftist BS artist… he can’t keep his mouth shut. Impossible task.
“Climate Hustle” will be in theaters for a one-night event on Monday, May 2nd, and will include an exclusive panel discussion following the film featuring Gov. Sarah Palin, climatologist Dr. David Legates, Media Research Center Pres. Brent Bozell, and film host Marc Morano.
Read Anthony’s review of the film here

Advertisements

273 thoughts on “Bill Nye invokes the ‘Streisand Effect’ to promote ‘Climate Hustle’ Film

  1. Thanks for the reminder (Bill). I’ll add it to my calendar to see the film. It was not there before.

    • Bill, you would gotten more publicity for the film had you done it in the little girl’s room where you belong.

    • It’s not unusual for small-budget independent productions. A friend of mine recently had a one-day nationwide event for his documentary In Their Own Words: The Tuskegee Airmen – it takes a lot of coordination to make something like that happen, but it’s still easier than getting full-on theatrical distribution. I think the events are often used to help publicize the film.

    • Munny. Which is why it is showing on an empty Monday.
      However, if the theater is packed full, they often arrange the same again for the next week.

      R

  2. Say, billie, did you ever retract your LIE about the ski slopes at Jackson Hole? They were buried 30 feet deep the day you said there was no snow in Jackson Hole (the town, 11 miles away, thousands of feet lower, on the lee of the Rockies).

  3. Sadly no theatre within two hours of here. But just an aside to Bill Nye: You’re harming science education and this is a prime example. Practice a little scientific method! If your political agenda makes you take positions not supportable by science, as you have shown here, quit pretending your position is based on science.

    You make it darn hard to teach real scientific method.

  4. In Europe we know little of the ‘sciency man’

    However, Greenland ice is in the news
    Greenland ice core proxies could be unreliable?
    It appears that the lower sections of the ice are folding over as it flows

    more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-full-d-large-scale-greenland-ice.html

    also: The Earth’s climate has been warming, but even though the Greenland ice sheet is melting rapidly in the coastal regions, there are large parts of the ice sheet (40 percent) where there has hardly been any melting on the surface.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-04-insulating-layer-air-greenland-ice.html

      • I just red Wikipedia’s entry
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
        sounds ok, probably written by himself
        This bit won’t endear him to his green followers:
        – Bill Nye announced he changed his mind, and now supports, GMOs. In a radio interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Nye stated “… there’s no difference between allergies among GMO eaters and non-GMO eaters… organic farming takes a lot more water… I’ve changed my mind about genetically modified organisms”

    • Vuc, as much as I am maybe interested in understanding your climate ideas, and as much as I can identify… refugee Sudetenland and Slovak grandparents… Greenland ice sheet is way, way off topic concerning Nye Streisand effect. Please don’t do that. Confuses things. Suggest you submit a separate guest post instead.

      • Hi Mr Istvan
        Thanks for the reminder. Negative effect of the Greenland ice data could be neutralised by the Wikepedia note further down, it is a bit like the effect of the solar wind on the upper atmosphere’s molecules, equal number of protons and electrons, total effect zero, tell us the solar scientists, forgetting that the first is five orders of magnitude more massive than the second. Not that I would claim that Wiki’s references have the same effect, but at least I found Mr. Nye’s biography worth reading. My ‘climate ideas’ have the greatest effect when totally ignored. All the best .v u k.

      • Thank Stephan, correct three orders of magnitude, (1.836* 10^3 not 1.836*10^5) , I need to increase font on my monitor or perhaps consider start using reading glasses, certainly when looking at numbers with the tiny exponents.

  5. Billy Nye: Propagandist and bigot all dressed up in a bow tie, pretending to be a scientist, pretending to be a journalist.

  6. Thank you Bill.
    Now, while you’ve got that that galactic size brain of yours engaged with a similarly dimensioned gob, can you please explain this: How does a cold object, such as the sky, can radiate energy to a warm object, the surface of the earth and hence cause the temperature of the warm object to rise.
    Perhaps you might tell the presently assembled throng how the likes of Joule, Kelvin, Watt, Einstein. Planck and Boltzmann, to name a few, got it all so wrong and you have such a crystal clear vision of what trapped heat is.
    Am not holding my breath here mind you, but, if you don’t ask you don’t get….

    • Perhaps you might tell the presently assembled throng how the likes of Joule, Kelvin, Watt, Einstein. Planck and Boltzmann, to name a few, got it all so wrong …

      They didn’t get it wrong. I am a little troubled that you apparently think that, by reciting their names, you can convince us that you fully understand their work. How about, for each one of the above scientists, you tell us how their work supports your contention.

      • Bob,

        I suppose he would like to link to posts that would answer your question, but that is against site rules here.

        I can only say that there is a sizeable number of scientists who don’t believe that CO2 warms the surface at all. They also would ask why the climate “scientists” only use a flat earth with continual dim sunshine to model the planet. Last I heard the planet was a three dimensional sphere that rotated and so had night and day. (but then again, I don’t teach at Penn State or the State Penn)

      • markstoval says: April 29, 2016 at 2:22 pm

        Everything you say is true and well said. Peta in Cumbria, on the other hand, went beyond the pale in terms of snark and illogic and therefore deserves to be lambasted.

      • Bob,
        You misread Peta’s comment. He was saying that Bill Nye, in order to believe what he does, MUST believe that Joule, Kelvin, Watt, Einstein etc all “got it wrong” because if one understands that their theories-work, and are accurate, one cannot believe that the atmosphere warms the planet.

        He was being sarcastic/ironic. :)

    • Heat flows from hot to cold, but heat is the net energy. Anything above absolute zero radiates energy.

      A bottle of water at room temperature remains at room temperature. How is that possible? It is radiating its energy; it ought to grow cold. However it is also receiving energy at the same rate from everything else in the room with a ray path to it. There is no convection because it is at room temperature.

      If you place a block of ice nearby, but not so near as to convectively cool the air and subsequently the bottle, the bottle will nevertheless cool. It is radiating energy but NOT getting back as much as was formerly the case. If you place extremely cold substance nearby, the bottle gets even less radiant energy back, basically none, and thus cools as fast as you might expect from radiation and will eventually freeze.

      If nothing existed between the surface of the Earth and space you would freeze. We depend on that thermal blanket radiating back to not freeze. This effect is easily seen on a cloudy night in a cold dry climate; much warmer than a clear night at the same location. The clouds radiate down at a temperature of about 20 degrees F (that’s what I measured, in the winter, in the desert) whereas the night sky measured -60 F, the lowest reading of my infrared thermometer. Thus a clear sky presents no obstacle to the surface radiating all the way to space (in that particular band; the “atmospheric window”).

      Now then, on a cloudy night, the Earth does not know or care that the clouds are in the way, so radiation happens exactly the same. But what happens is the clouds are also radiating. The NET effect is less cooling of the surface. The clouds won’t *warm* the Earth, but certainly and demonstrably slow down its cooling.

      • It can be even more sudden and dramatic than you might realize Michael:
        I have witnessed on very many occasions a thin wisp of cirrus streaming over Florida from the Gulf of Mexico instantly interrupting the falling temperature on nights when strong radiational cooling was occurring, and the temperature rise several degrees in a matter of minutes, where before the thin wisp of clouds appeared, it had been falling several degrees per hour.
        i have actually had many crops saved from damage from such events over the years when I was a running a plant nursery and had friends growing crops such as strawberries and citrus and watermelons.
        When you are up all night for weeks at a time, for years on end, with thermometers every fifty feet in a agricultural area…you notice things that people who sleep at night will never ever notice.

      • BTW, I do not think the cirrus clouds warmed the ground and the air near the ground…they just blocked or slowed the flow of heat from the surface and from the air near the surface.

      • @Michael 2
        April 29, 2016 at 2:32 pm: False. You are adding mass to the room, just as you are adding atmospheric mass to the airless planet. The atmospheric thermal effect (ATE). This obeys the gas laws because it is not confined. Only restrained by gravity which forms the lapse rate. You have created a new and different physical situation, apples vs oranges, energy-wise. Experimental fail.
        Clouds at night – likely colder than the surface, but anyway, there is another mass effect also involving convection IIRC, and inversion.. Heat, aka sensible heat, is always a kinetic result of work done on molecules. Any radiative energy is subsumed, gone, in the process of becoming KE. Leaving a spectral T reading, radiated to the negative 4th power. Those clouds are of course involved in massive latent energy transfer upwards, the main way it is done. Clouds herald a change in weather to different experimental conditions too.
        There are problems with using IR gear on night skies. They tend to actually measure proxies within their workings, and not be designed for long distance measurements. So these will give a false reading in that case.

      • Sorry Michael 2, I should have made it clearer that heat is not energy, but a measurement of work done already.

    • I see that I have misread your comment. I cannot imagine a scenario where a cold object can impart warmth to the already warm object making it warmer, because at that exact moment, the warm object is imparting its warmth to the cold object at a much higher rate of energy transfer due to its warmth.

      I think there’s some confusion that warmists believe the Earth is warmed by clouds or carbon dioxide, and I have no doubt with 7 billion people that some will believe this, but the actual warming comes from the sun. Clouds and CO2 and other things impede radiant energy departure from the surface, but enhance radiation at the top of atmosphere, or in some cases reduce incoming radiant energy. The “net effect” of all that remains variable and I am not convinced anyone or any computer precisely understands all of it.

    • The down-welling radiant energy doesn’t heat the warmer surface but it does slow the rate at which the warmer surface cools since the rate of energy transfer is dependent on the temperature difference between the two bodies.

      • So, has your grant money arrived yet???? Of course, the statement is not convoluted enough for the “real ” scientists.

      • I don’t need any grant money for what should be basic thermodynamics I learned in my grade 9 science class.

    • Peta: To over-simplify it: (rate of heat flow) = k * (t2 – t1);
      At night, clouds are warmer than space, so the heat flows slower on a cloudy night.
      Higher fractions of CO2 warm the air very slightly, so all else being equal, the heat flows slightly slower.
      [However in general all else is not equal.]

    • Actually it’s pretty easy.
      When you radiate energy into an object, it’s energy level increases.
      The respective temperatures of the two objects is utterly meaningless.

  7. Bill Nye sez; “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.”
    Whaaa? How in holy double-hockey sticks could taking in a film expose people’s point of view in any way, shape or form? Are they going to set up video cameras videoing the people attending? “Expose” is a threatening word.

    • I actually thought that quote was the most interesting part of the report. The thing to bear in mind is that Bill Nye faces a rather different set of incentives than most of us out here in the silent majority. Our public spaces are now dominated by the moral ideologies of the left: politically correct liberalism and environmentalism. Hence, the safe and conformist viewpoint for those who compete for a living in the public space, is the one that agrees with the left.

      In Billy Nye’s world you would have to be crazy to go against such a powerful entrenched narrative. When he says “it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority”, he’s projecting. Being in that place would be fearsome to him, and he can’t comprehend why anyone would subject themselves to such an obviously dangerous situation.

    • The movie screen sucks the point of view out of their brain through the eyeballs, and feeds the information to the overlords.

    • People like Nye think that other people, whom he believes are less discerning than himself, need to be “protected” from any point of view other than the “correct” Alarmist one. It is an all too frequent elitist strategy. Protect the poor dears from anything that might get them thinking that Nye and his ilk have been feeding them a load of piffle all these years. After all, most of the MSM feeds the masses the same Alarmist drivel over and over again – the Alarmists want to keep it that way. Sort of like an Inconvenient Truth – where have I heard that one before?

  8. My experience with the “science” of Bill Nye was a number of years ago when I ordered some video material for my science class. Bill Nye had put together this neat demonstration about boiling and freezing points and the effects of adding salt. Great, entertaining demonstration. Only problem was, he had the science completely wrong, with his “results” the exact opposite of what is known science. I had to send the video back to the supplier with a an admonition to remove the material from sale and with a question of why the material had not been reviewed for accuracy. From that moment on, I knew this guy was a charlatan who knew less about science than my students.

  9. Not long ago, I watched Bill Nye on TVOntario’s “The Agenda with Steve Pakon”.

    When asked about the difference with the current warming compared to the warmer climates of the past he explained the rate of increase is unprecedented, ergo it must be us. He seemed completely unaware the proxy reconstrucructions lack the temporal resolution for a valid comparison with the instrumental record.

    You would think someone of his stature would know enough to acknowledge the uncertainty.

    • Even within proxy and prior thermometer limits, it’s not unprecedented. Far from it.

      What stature does a TV performer have in science?

    • Okay crazy person! we’ll take a note of that… (scribbles suggestively on hand as if to write something down) :D

    • Steve Pakin & “The Agenda” program do their best to inform Ontarians of who’s involved in the climate scam!

    • The man held up a map/image of Antarctica during a television segment on the Arctic region!!!! Apparently he’s also completely unaware of the geography of the planet too!!

    • Phil Brisley,

      I guess it goes to show how far one can get just by adopting the right pose. It really is the same as what advertisers call “positioning”.

    • Bye Doom, when I say “stature” I use the term loosely. The topic was “Earth Hour” and Bill Nye was Steve Pakin’s choice to explain climate change science and answer his questions. When you watch the video clip (thanks Colorado Wellington) it’s obvious the man is quite weak on the science and has no understanding of the skeptic position whatsoever.

      I think rw is right, this is not so much about the science, rather more about “positioning”. It’s apparently quite important for Bill Nye, like the MSM, most governments, academics, institutional science and various elites to be “on message”.

      And Barbara you’re not far off the mark. Earlier this week The Agenda did three shows on “Energy” with panels consisting of a mix of professionals, academics and government employees from around the world. Everyone seemed to be on board with the settled science catastrophic AGW meme. There was no discussion of the science from first principles, none of the uncertainties were covered. When it comes to man-made global warming too many fail to grasp where the science ends and supposition begins…it’s as if they don’t want to know.

  10. If Nye is so sure that AGW is real he should be telling everyone to go see the movie, examine the evidence, … wow he’s really just a coward and a charlatan … pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, he is not important … now would someone get me another cold beer?

  11. Stand up comedians, actors, the president of the Sierra Club, my those alarmist lefty loonies have some heavy hitters… scoff

  12. I already know that socialists use and abuse “climate change” to push a political agenda, I don’t need to watch a low budget movie to reinforce my already held beliefs. The undecided and open minded need to be reached (the true believers are a lost cause), and sadly this movie will likely never be seen by them.

    • Belief?
      Poor choice of words but the last time I checked we were all about ‘objective evidence’ and the acknowledgment that we have no idea which turns the climate will take given the fact that it doesn’t operate on a scale that we can fully comprehend…yet.

      • Well, there’s an amazing argumentative suggestion built into you’re blithering idiocy we can all comprehend.

  13. Western North America didn’t get the global warming memo. It’s spring in Crescent City, CA, with a high of 57 degrees F today. It’s fall in Puerto Montt, Chile, at the same latitude, but with a high over 64 (current T.).

      • DataTurk said:
        “Just because there are bigger fools, does not make her less of one.”
        Or you.
        (Thought terminating cliche’)

        To rw-
        “Remember one thing, though….you are smarter than she is.”
        We’re starting to suspect that you believe you have mind reading abilities.
        (Projection bias)

        “No, thanks…I always wait to read the reviews before I see a movie”
        Of COURSE you do! You probably don’t do anything without getting someone else’s opinion first.
        (Bandwagon effect, groupthink, herd behavior)

        For someone who has spent so much time here snarking about the intelligence of another person without providing any evidence regarding her actual intelligence level, you sure like to leave a lot of empirical evidence laying around that demonstrates you lack logical debate skills, you engage in cognitive biases, and that your ability to make decisions depends greatly on the opinions and thoughts of others.

        Bravo. You sure made HER look stupid…..(sarc)

      • No, thanks…I always wait to read the reviews before I see a movie.
        ************************************************************************************************
        Always a good idea when there’s only ONE scheduled showing – ?

        SteveT

      • DataTurk, so you are admitting that you made up your mind regarding Palin with no information whatsoever.
        How typical.

      • MarkW,

        He’s just being led by Alinsky’s commandment: demonize the opposition.

        They’ve done an excellent job of demonizing someone who won beauty contests (don’t laugh, there is more intense, cut-throat competition in them than in most elections — I was married to someone who entered those contests. They’re tough, and it takes more than beauty to win. It takes above average intelligence.)

        And she won election as Governor of Alaska, one of the most corrupt states in the union. She ran as a Republican, so naturally the über-corrupt Dems have been out to get her ever since she cleaned up corruption in that state. See, they’re all corrupt, and they fear her.

        So the media has demonized a decent and intelligent woman. They should be so proud (/sarc). But the ones who should really be asamed are the folks who let themselves be led by an invisible media ring in their nose, and who now head-nod whenever someone makes fun of Gov. Palin.

        Those same people are the problem in this country, not the solution. They don’t think for themselves, they just nod their heads like good little eco-lemmings.

      • MarkW…wow. You are truly a mind reader. Sarah Palin is the blonde on Big Bang Theory, right, or am I all confused about the really embarrassing 2008 Republican ticket? I have such a hard time keeping my facts straight.

        Thanks for pointing that out. You have real insight…beyond your years.

      • DataTurk,

        You might be lacking some insight yourself. The reasons that ticket lost were multiple. Sarah Palin was the least of them.

        But thanx for showing us that the media’s demonization of a successful individual was also successful.

      • DB…

        I was actually hoping for someone who could credibly make the sceptical case. Palin really only has cred among the star struck fanboys, including some on this site.

        Alinsky, really? Wrong address, dude.

    • She’s representative as an outspoken single mother. Seems about par for the course for US females.

      • expat, i think you’re mistaking sarah palin for her daughter bristol here. and as well, i think the reason for the glut of single american mothers probably has more to do with typical american males being slobs than any deficiencies on their part. (it certainly was in her case…)

      • Check out Sarah Palin’s genetic background. She has a genetic background that most politicians would “kill” for.

      • For information on Sarah Heath Palin:

        Check with the New England Historic Genealogical Society Boston, founded 1845

        http://www.americanancestors.org

        This Society has information on all of the Presidential, Vice-presidential candidates with New England heritage.

        Sarah Heath Palin is a Mayflower family decdent and member of the U.S. Presidential families.

        Since this is a political situation as well as a scientific situation, Sarah Palin is as well qualified to discuss this as any other politician is.

      • It really is fascinating how so many people judge others based on where they grew up and what colleges they went to.

        Then they will turn around and proudly proclaim that they don’t have a biased bone in their bodies.

    • If Neil Young can comment on climate change and on Alberta’s Oil Sands, Palin can be on this panel. While on a stage a year or so ago with some Canadian Aboriginals, Young stated that ALL the oil from Alberta’s Oil Sands was sold to China – actually almost all of the oil goes by pipeline to the U.S. The clip aired on CBC Television ONCE only, then it disappeared. Canada’s taxpayer financed TV network ($1.1 billion per year) is a big supporter of alarmist climate “science”.

    • How about this viewpoint DataTurk-

      If even Sarah Palin can grasp the “science” and explain it well, then how “stupid” and “dingbat” do the CAGWers look because they feel the need to hire and groom “climate communicators” so the public can be taught? Do you realize that Bill Nye the Science Fly and Al Gore’s statements ALONE make Sarah Palin look like Einstein? And at least I can look at her without feeling like I need to bleach my eyes afterwards.

      The “idiot” demographic is out in full force today. Apparently picking on their half human/half mantis poster boy gets them all snippy!

  14. “Climate Hustle” will be in theaters for a one-night event on Monday, May 2nd, and will include an exclusive panel discussion following the film featuring Gov. Sarah Palin, climatologist Dr. David Legates, Media Research Center Pres. Brent Bozell, and film host Marc Morano.”

    I expect to get a big thumbs down here, but I can take it. Sarah Palin is far from the best choice if the idea is to enlighten and persuade. I just don’t see what’s gained.

    • Someone explain to me why they had to get Sarah Palin involved. She knows nothing about the subject and is an embarrassment to skeptics.

      • Every time I think we really are slicker and smarter than the clumsy, propaganda spewing alarmists, I see us doing something that reeks of bad judgment. . Why oh why sarah palin, indeed. What’s to be gained? Nothing.

        What’s go to be lost? Credibility, that’s all.

      • Tell us, please, why it was unwise to involve a former Governor and candidate for National office, aneipris.

      • She’s not as dumb as many politicians. She knows there are 50 states in the U.S. She warned that Russia would invade Ukraine if Obama were elected. She said that fracking would lead to a drop in oil and gas prices. She didn’t believe that Benghazi was a result of a protest against a YouTube video.

      • I’m bringing at least one true believer to the movie and when he sees Sarah Palin on the panel, he won’t stop laughing long enough to hear anything for the rest of the film. True believers are like that, and Marc already knows this.

        If he wanted to change anyone’s mind, putting her on the panel was an own goal.

      • I like to ask people what “specifically” is wrong with Sarah Palin. The stuttering and confusion as they rack their brain, refusing to believe they may have been misled by the msm, is hilarious.
        Same as asking who that guy is on their Che Gueverra shirt,………
        Such sheep.

      • “I like to ask what specifically is wrong with Sara Palin?

        I’m sure she’s a swell person, but she’s uneducated, unimpressive (yes, she made a great speech back in 2008 but have you listened to her lately), and worst of all, as polarizing a figure as I can think of. DO you suppose someone as divisive as Sarah Palin is a good choice when the purpose of this whole dog and pony show is to change minds?

      • “I’m sure she’s a swell person, but she’s uneducated, unimpressive (yes, she made a great speech back in 2008 but have you listened to her lately), and worst of all, as polarizing a figure as I can think of. DO you suppose someone as divisive as Sarah Palin is a good choice when the purpose of this whole dog and pony show is to change minds?”

        1. Logical fallacies- YOU don’t get to declare that she is “uneducated” unless you define what an “educated person” means to you. Sarah Palin has a college degree, and seems to be pretty well informed on the topics she speaks on. Whether or not you or anyone else considers her to be “impressive” or not is also irrelevant.
        2. Have you “listened to YOU lately?”
        3. Whether or not she is “polarizing” is also irrelevant to the issue.
        4. When did YOU get a memo stating that this is a “dog and pony show” whose purpose is to “change minds”? It’s a movie offering the FACTS that are never presented by the other side. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a competition. It’s not about people, or personalities, or your irrelevant cognitive biases. It’s about educating the public on how manipulated they are.

        But hey, let’s talk uneducated, unimpressive, and polarizing-Al Gore, Bill Nye the idiot guy, Cook et al, Lewandowsky, Gavin Schmidt, Barrack Obama, James Hansen….and on and on. Talk about divisive!

    • Palin’s involvement makes it clear that Morano is simply seeking the lowest common denominator. Her presence dumbs down the event to pure politics, and infantile politics to boot.

      • Sure, ’cause every worshiper of the mass media knows Ms. Palin is persona non grata in establishment TV land ; )

        How ’bout you volunteer to take her place, Mr. Scraft? You could show everybody involved how to bark like a trained seal ; )

    • Why waste the money putting it in theaters in the first place ?
      It could/would get way more play on the intertubes.
      There is some weird thinking going on here.

      • Even as a one-night event, a theatrical showing garners far more publicity than you could get for the same money spent marketing in solely online. It’s worthwhile for almost any film.

      • That was my thought as well. If the most important reason for making this movie is to educate the average person, then they should put it on YouTube or similar type venues. Perhaps, after this first and only showing that is what they intend to do next?

      • Do you folks not get the whole point? Bill Nye wouldn’t have given so much free publicity if it were just a youtube video, easily ignored. The point of this thread. Wow.

    • Aneipris,

      For some weird reason you seem to think that Sarah Palin is not capable of “enlightening or persuading” anyone of anything, and yet not ONE of your comments here has been enlightened or persuasive! It’s like you believe that you are some kind of anointed expert on what Marc Morano’s goals are, or what he’s trying to accomplish, and that you should have been consulted on the exact, most effective (according to YOU) methods, people, situations and panel members, because anything less that what YOU would prefer, simply cannot work out in a positive manner.

      My CRAP..how arrogant, self aggrandizing, illogical and biased could a person be WHILE attempting to paint someone else as unenlightened? Do you realize how UN-persuasive (and sad, and simple) your sentiments are to people who care more about facts, and evidence, and truth than your personal opinions?

      • Nice unprovoked rant, Aphan. I don’t pretend to know what Morano’s motives were. But putting Sarah Palin on a panel is ludicrous. Just what is the goal here – to attract angry blue collar workers? When she speaks she is unprepared and lets her mouth dominate her brain, such as it is. I challenge anyone to refute this. What we’re seeing is lowest common denominator republicanism. Not a pretty picture.

      • Have you met Sarah Palin? Spent time with her? Are you a qualified expert who has tested her intelligence level? Can you read minds? Have you spoken to people who know her? Are the people of Alaska all imbeciles to you?

        Your unqualified, personal opinion, along with those of every other unqualified person who doesn’t like her, are IRRELEVANT to the facts in any discussion. You are entitled to it, but we are entitled to ignore it, because it’s not evidence!

        http://www.boulderweekly.com/opinion/danish-plan/is-sarah-palin-smart-enough-to-be-president/

        Feminist, Democrat weighs in after spending time with Palin-

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/10/27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac.html

        http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/23/the-myth-of-sarah-palins-stupidity/

        https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4160-

        “If you call yourself a critical thinker,ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault. Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that’s “stupid”, and I’ll show you something that’s perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions. It may be that you simply disagree with her convictions, and you probably have very good reasons for doing so. But if that’s the case, don’t just say “Sarah Palin is stupid”. That’s kindergarten talk, and it makes you look bad, not her. Understand why she takes the position she does, then reveal the faults in that position.”

        You come here acting like a child, lacking evidence or logic, and you get called out for it. That’s not a rant. That’s just reality.

      • Miso,

        THAT is idiotic. She said “All of them”, as in every paper or magazine she had access to. Katie wanted her to NAME some, which could only mean 2 things:
        1.Katie doesn’t know the names of “all”
        2. Katie wanted to tie Palin to certain publications by name for some reason. IOW, she had an agenda. And Palin perfectly sidestepped the trap.

        You don’t name favorites or get into media wars when you’re running for office. You NEVER give any press office preference OR annoy one by mentioning another. The only person acting “stupid” in this case, is YOU.

      • “She could have mentioned the “Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman” the local paper in Wasilla.”

        Sure, ’cause there’s no chance at all that anyone would use that answer to make her out to be an unsophisticated hick . . ; )

      • scraft1, it really is fascinating the way you assume that everyone else shares your irrational prejudices.

      • Aphan, Palin didn’t grow up in the Northeast. She didn’t go to the right colleges. She has a funny accent.
        This is all proof positive to the self righteous that she must be an idiot.

  15. The film should be released in Australia before the July 2nd election. Climate change is emerging as an issue for the left, again.

  16. Looking forward to seeing it someday. Pity someone thought Sarah Palin would be a suitable climate science political ambassador in a panel. Leftists with an open mind to the science will be turned off in droves. Lost opportunity

    • If leftist with an open mind would be turned off, then just how open are their minds? Or maybe CAGW is all politics after all?

      PS I admit when I saw her name I was a bit surprised. But she’s smart. She’s pretty. And she knows that CAGW is a bunch of political BS. (Did I mention that she’s smart?)
      Besides, Emma Thomson was busy being sprayed.

      • Gunga: Because you agree with her overall political stance, you seem to be finding it hard to see the negative cast that she might put on the message of the movie, for someone who comes from somewhere else on the political spectrum.

        I have no doubt that she isn’t nearly as dumb or ill-informed as the mainstream media have made out because they love to pick on silly little verbal errors, but she has made a few serious mistakes in public (perhaps more than a few – I’m not that well informed about US politics). The only one that I actually saw was her interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC TV, where she stated that Canada has been a good friend to America because Canadian forces had fought alongside US troops in the Vietnam war. Mansbridge corrected her quite sternly, and she seemed shocked at the forcefulness of his reaction. The best you can say in her defence was that she was ill-prepared for the interview and that she must have been confused, either between Vietnam and Korea, or between Canada and Australia. No matter how much you might want to blame the media for that gaffe, the fault is hers. It certainly didn’t win her any friends on this side of the border.

        Those of us on the sceptical side of the fence have the hope that this movie might convince some of the
        less brainwashed of the warmers that the science is not settled, that there is a valid argument against the alarmist hypothesis, and that if you study the facts you will quite possibly come away with the conclusion that you’ve been conned by the warmist establishment. And the presence of Ms. Palin might put off some of the unconvinced who might be wavering, from seeing the movie, or from accepting its message. Not necessarily because of her political stance, although that might be part of it for some, even a big part, but most particularly, because she comes across (as in the example I gave) as being someone who just doesn’t treat factual information with the respect and rigour that it deserves.

        There’s a propaganda war going on and the Merchants of Doom are still winning, although there are a few cracks in the monolithic facade of warmery. This movie, we hope, could be a good weapon for the sceptical cause. Putting Sarah Palin in it diminishes its value as a weapon, to some as yet undetermined degree.

        If the movie is only watched by sceptics, it will just make another room in the echo chamber where the sceptics all tell each other how clever they are and how venal are the warmers. Great, we can all feel good about ourselves because we are intellectually superior and we understand the truth, but that doesn’t help the course of the propaganda war. We’ll still be losing.

        I wonder, if Morano had been able to get Piers Corbyn on his panel, would that have opened a few eyes on that side of the fence?

      • Darn, m_o_d_s filter must have grabbed my comment and I thought it was very respectful. Maybe it will come back. Was it because I used the word w_a_r? Talking about a certain long lived event involving the United States in south east Asia in the 1960s and 70s, it’s hard not to use that word.

        Canadians, many of them, will remember the interview I alluded to without being reminded of it.

    • Woah….when was she granted the title of “climate science political ambassador”? If your care/intellectual appetite is more concerned with appearances and star power (or lack of it) than the actual facts and debate itself, and you have to exaggerate and strain to the point of embarrassment to even come up with a comment here, you make Sarah Palin look like a Nobel Science Prize winner!

  17. I am just wondering if it will be released on iTunes, Amazon etc…, I would purchase a copy, for sure and recommend it to my friends who don’t follow the AGW scam as closely as I do,

    • Really? (Quotes from your judge link):

      “Court rules documentary can be shown in schools · Presentation is ‘broadly accurate’ but lacks balance”

      The quote goes on to say that the movie can be shown, but with guidance about points he considered “alarmist” – not quite what you claim above, is it? We must add that the majority of climate scientists concur with Gore’s film.

      “Despite his finding of significant errors(points he thought were too alarmist), Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported “by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

      This quote – from your link – speaks loudly.

      All movies unscientific? Really? Documentaries? PBS science movies/programmes?

      Do you tolerate dissenting opinions on this board? Hopefully, you do. The democratic way. Avoids censorship.

      Thanks for having me here.

      • Censorship can be found on most of the true believers sites. As long as your comment is reasonably on topic it will always be posted here.

      • Goldminor – Thanks. Good to know that. Why did the moderator(you?) say,

        “Gore’s movie for example was full of “stupid and misleading” items” – when that ‘stupid and misleading’ phrase does not exist in the judge link? Not even either word, singly.

        BTW, I only got to this site because of another site which used this site to hype “Climate Hustle”. I really have no intention of waging a major campaign of dissent here. I’m trying to alert people to the misinformation in that movie, that’s all.

        Means you won’t see me here all that much. Maybe once in a while.

      • Dissent is certainly accepted here, as long as you adhere to the site policies. But you might want to see how well dissent is accepted at sites like the one you reference, and others on the other side of the debate. Interesting how one side of this debate sees such a need to suppress debate, isn’t it?

        Stick around. Debate, argue. There are some people here who will be mean, some who will be nice, some in between, but you will be heard. You won’t be censored as long as you abide by the rules. If you think you have something to teach us, then do so. Or maybe you’ll be the one to learn. But I suggest you read the archives, so you can see what’s been argued before. After all, you don’t want to waste time on arguments that haven’t worked in the past, right?

        Hope to see you around!

      • I notice that John didn’t answer my question. I was hoping he might be the first. Ah, well…

      • In my response to Aphan, I said I was focusing only on her post(about Climate Hustle). One thing at a time, as a rule, for me. So now for a momentary departure from that rule:

        Your comment about not answering is unclear – what question? I can only guess it would be what would change my mind. If that is what you are referring to,

        Then yes, a new ice age would make me rethink things. But Wisconsin glaciers aren’t necessary. Some of the following statements, if shown to be true from evidence in peer-reviewed studies, and confirmed by others in other peer-reviewed studies, might accomplish the task:

        CO2 is NOT a GHG, after, all.

        There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, after all.

        Basically, new and strong peer-reviewed research overturning all/most of the current evidence for AGW. I think anyone accomplishing that would be a candidate for the Nobel prize.

        Now, back to waiting for Aphan to respond to me. If she doesn’t respond soon, maybe I should turn to you?

        BTW, no one responded to my questions to the mod, either, but that is a “tu quoque” from me.

        Hopefully that helps, Tony.

        My apologies for any typos. No apparent edit function(is there one somewhere?) I depend(prob too much) on edit functions to fix typos in my posts.

      • John,

        Congratulations on being the first person to ever answer my question about what it would take to change your mind. I have been asking that same question of AGW believers here for years, and until now, every one I have asked has not answered.

        In light of that, have you taken my suggestion to look through the archives here? I think you will find some interesting reading on the subject.

        CO2 is NOT a GHG, after, all.
        There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, after all.

        So you don’t think it just might it be possible that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 is a GHG, and still the current warming is not due to human-derived influences? It has been warmer in the past, CO2 has been higher in the past, why is this time different? Because the models say so?

        The problem is that the assumption the models make is that CO2 is the primary driver. So of course the models are going to show a sensitivity to CO2. The simple fact that the models have not accurately predicted future trends shows that they are not correctly tuned.

        It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – I’m sure you recognize the quote from Richard Feynman.

        At this point, we have a “theory” that, according to the “climate scientists”, predicts almost everything, including another LIA. A theory that cannot be falsified is no theory at all.

        Also, the AGW position is to start with the assumption that the theory is true. The null hypothesis – that the current warming is simply due to natural variation – has not been disproven.

        Basically, new and strong peer-reviewed research overturning all/most of the current evidence for AGW. I think anyone accomplishing that would be a candidate for the Nobel prize.

        Again, I suggest reading the archives here. “HARRY_READ_ME” might be of some interest to you, especially regarding your above suggestion.

        I know that I found “fudge factor” and “I can make it up, so I did” in the source code to be somewhat enlightening, in addition to the emails regarding “redefining peer review”

        Are you willing to change your position even if the climate priests continue to sing the same tune? Is there any evidence that will convince you that they just might be wrong? After all, it’s been known to happen in science that the “consensus” was wrong, hasn’t it?

        BTW, no one responded to my questions to the mod, either, but that is a “tu quoque” from me.

        Can’t speak for anyone else, and I don’t know the answer to that – but I specifically called you out on this because you had returned to the discussion, and it has been my experience thus far that nobody will even answer the question I posed. Even after I call them out for not answering. So again, congratulations on being the first.

      • Tony,

        Thank you for your kind response.

        Aphan is not responding(neither is the mod) – but I want to give Aphan 1 more day to respond before turning elsewhere.

        Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean turning to you, next – because my “mission” – if can be called that – is to talk up what I consider the misinformation in Climate Hustle. So I would turn first to somebody who would respond on that.

        Perhaps you would? :-)

        When the movie discussion seems exhausted, then I would greatly enjoy talking with you the points you mention here.

        Thanks,

        (isther noedit funtion?)

      • Given that I have not seen the movie, I don’t think that I am in any position to comment on the accuracy of any of its contents.

        If you only want to discuss that, then I am afraid I cannot do so intelligently. I think, since you have not seen the movie either, you cannot do so either. Your “mission” is not based on first-hand knowledge of the subject under discussion. It is, instead, simply you repeating talking points raised by others who dislike its contents. I think that if you want to discuss the ‘disinformation’ contained in a movie, it is incumbent on you to actually view the movie in question first. To do otherwise is no different than reviewing a book on Amazon that you haven’t read. Your opinions of a movie you have not seen are irrelevant, and worthy of summary dismissal. As are mine, which is why I won’t discuss it.

        If you want to discuss the overall science of AGW and why I don’t accept the ‘consensus’ on the subject, I am happy to oblige.

      • We both know what to expect in the movie. Why are you eager to see it? Perhaps because you expect it to say things in accordance with your cognitive biases? Why do WUWT people here recommend it? Same reason?

        Means you have made a decision on this movie prior to actually viewing it. We all fall victim to that problem sometimes.

        On my part, I expect there to be a great deal of misinformation in it. I already pointed out one example – based on an advertising clip – to Aphan, but no response so far, from her or anyone else.

        All that said, I agree with you completely that the discussion of the film is best done after its screening – which is what I meant, but was not clear about(sorry). This means starting in on Climate Hustle probably tomorrow.

        If some discussion of AGW evidence creeps in(it has to) – that will be great.

        So where’s the edit function? :-)

        Thanks for the quick response.

      • We both know what to expect in the movie.

        I have no idea what to expect. I have no vested interest in it either way.

        Why are you eager to see it?

        I’m not. Never said I was. You are ascribing motives where none exist.

        Perhaps because you expect it to say things in accordance with your cognitive biases?

        Is it possible that you have some biases of your own that are motivating you to speak out about a movie you have not seen? Why are you so keen to keep people from seeing it? If it’s factually incorrect, let those facts speak for themselves.

        Why do WUWT people here recommend it? Same reason?

        I can’t speak to anyone’s motivation other than my own. But the filmmaker is known around here.

        Means you have made a decision on this movie prior to actually viewing it. We all fall victim to that problem sometimes.

        Speak for yourself. I have made no decision regarding this movie other than I might be interested in seeing it at some point. I have not seen it, so I can’t speak to the content at all. You, however, have clearly allowed your own bias to guide your thinking, and have decided on the accuracy of the movie without having seen it. Don’t project your bias onto me.

        On my part, I expect there to be a great deal of misinformation in it.

        So you admit you have a bias about the movie already.

        I already pointed out one example – based on an advertising clip – to Aphan, but no response so far, from her or anyone else.

        I seem to recall reading some responses. But if you want to know about the CO2 leading temperatures, do as I have suggested multiple times before and read the archives on this site. You are repeating a discussion that has been had here multiple times in the past. But you seem unwilling to do a little basic research to learn why someone would hold a position that differs from your own. Also, you cite sources that are considered not credible, for reasons you would understand if you had followed my suggestions about researching the archives (we seem to keep getting back to that).

        Do some research on what we skeptics believe, and why. You might find it enlightening.

        As to why others aren’t responding – I suspect it’s because you’ve shown that you aren’t interested in an actual discussion. As you have stated, you are here to warn people about ‘misinformation’ in a film you haven’t seen, by presenting ‘evidence’ that consists of other people’s opinions about clips that may or may not be in the film. You have an agenda. That doesn’t play well around here. Go do some research and join other discussions.

        I am pretty well convinced at this point that you are not interested in actual discussion. Rather, you simply want to make your point, and maybe convince yourself that we “d***ers” are stupid, brainwashed, or whatever. If I’m wrong, then show us – do the research and engage, not just on this post. (Please, try to learn the arguments that have gone before so we don’t have to repeat the same thing yet again.)

        If some discussion of AGW evidence creeps in(it has to) – that will be great.

        Seems that when I raised the issue you said you were only interested in discussing the movie. Plenty of discussion about the science of AGW around here, if you’re interested.

        So where’s the edit function? :-)

        There is none. Complain to WordPress. We’ve been asking for quite some time.

      • Hi Tony

        “TonyG April 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm
        Even as a one-night event, a theatrical showing garners far more publicity than you could get for the same money spent marketing in solely online. It’s worthwhile for almost any film.
        goldminor April 29, 2016 at 9:19 pm
        That was my thought as well. If the most important reason for making this movie is to educate the average person, then they should put it on YouTube or similar type venues. Perhaps, after this first and only showing that is what they intend to do next?
        David Ball April 30, 2016 at 9:46 am
        Do you folks not get the whole point? Bill Nye wouldn’t have given so much free publicity if it were just a youtube video, easily ignored. The point of this thread. Wow.
        TonyG April 30, 2016 at 12:11 pm
        David: EXACTLY! It’s ALL about publicity. You simply don’t get that with a Youtube video.”

        With the above exchange you claim to be neutral? Be honest. You like it. You think it’s educational(you didn’t jump on goldminor). More publicity, the better.

        You claim to like honest discussions – well, so do I. So we agree on that.

        “Why are you eager to see it?
        I’m not. Never said I was. You are ascribing motives where none exist”

        I say you are. And virtually everyone here at WUWT, is, too. That’s why you’re in this group – you agree with each other on how flawed AGW arguments are. It’s good to be impartial, but on this you are not – and neither am I. This group advocates for Climate Hustle – where is your opposition to the people who recommend it in advance?

        But you oppose me, because I oppose it. You neutral? Meh.

        “Why are you so keen to keep people from seeing it?”
        I’m not. More that see it, the better, actually. I’m keen on showing the misinformation it’s going to broadcast.

        “But the filmmaker is known around here.”
        And your “leader” here – Anthony Watts, is in it. Why do you think that is?

        “….. Don’t project your bias onto me.”
        I’m not. I’m identifying your bias – if you’re honest, you’ll admit to it.

        “I seem to recall reading some responses.”(To my example of misinformation I pointed out to Aphan)
        There have been none. Not from you, either.

        “Also, you cite sources that are considered not credible, for reasons you would understand if you had followed my suggestions about researching the archives (we seem to keep getting back to that).”
        It seems our discussion may devolve into a debate over the credibility(or lack thereof) of Skeptical Science. That may be fair – but can make things tiresomely long.

        I have scanned over the archives, actually – just because WUWT considers something settled in those posts, doesn’t mean it really is.

        “As to why others aren’t responding – I suspect it’s because you’ve shown that you aren’t interested in an actual discussion. ”
        False.

        “I am pretty well convinced at this point that you are not interested in actual discussion.”
        False again.

        “Seems that when I raised the issue you said you were only interested in discussing the movie.”
        You didn’t read me correctly. Only interested in the movie at this time. Afterwards, OK, let’s have at it – but with honest discussions. So far you’re accusing me of a lot of things that are flat out untrue.
        Honesty, with respect, = good discussion. Let’s keep it that way. Or you and I won’t be discussing anything.

        Thanks for the comment about the edit function. Hope there aren’t too many typos in this. How do you make italics here?
        Enjoy the movie.
        I live 4000km from Toronto(I’m Canadian) – I won’t be seeing it in any theatre. I’ll watch it on YouTube when I find it there.

        To better discussions between us.

        Cheers.

      • John Macdonell,

        If you don’t want to watch it, then don’t. But please don’t bore us to tears with your endless parsing.

      • “TonyG April 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm
        Even as a one-night event, a theatrical showing garners far more publicity than you could get for the same money spent marketing in solely online. It’s worthwhile for almost any film.
        TonyG April 30, 2016 at 12:11 pm
        David: EXACTLY! It’s ALL about publicity. You simply don’t get that with a Youtube video.”

        With the above exchange you claim to be neutral? Be honest. You like it. You think it’s educational(you didn’t jump on goldminor). More publicity, the better.

        Wow, way to read into a conversation something that isn’t there.

        The point I was making was solely about the value of a one-night theatrical release versus the alternate suggestions being made. I am a filmmaker myself, so I have an interest in that sort of thing. I am talking about the motivations of the filmmaker, which you are reading as my own. You are projecting.

        “Why are you eager to see it?
        I’m not. Never said I was. You are ascribing motives where none exist”

        I say you are.

        Let’s see – I’m staying home editing a video for kickstarter tonight. I don’t even know if this is playing in my area. Where’s that eagerness?

        “I am pretty well convinced at this point that you are not interested in actual discussion.”
        False again.

        Well, you claim I’m eager to see this movie, and I say that’s false. We appear to be at an impasse.

        “Seems that when I raised the issue you said you were only interested in discussing the movie.”
        You didn’t read me correctly. Only interested in the movie at this time. Afterwards, OK, let’s have at it – but with honest discussions. So far you’re accusing me of a lot of things that are flat out untrue.
        Honesty, with respect, = good discussion. Let’s keep it that way. Or you and I won’t be discussing anything.

        I am commenting on how you appear to be coming across to me. You say I’m accusing you of things that are flat-out untrue, well, you’re doing the same. It works both ways, right?

        Thanks for the comment about the edit function. Hope there aren’t too many typos in this. How do you make italics here?

        Use HTML tags. The basic ones work.

      • Let’s wait until tomorrow when we’re likely to hear a great deal of what statements are made in the film.

        Let’s keep discussions respectful – no ad hominems, insults, personal attacks.

        Let’s just stick to the things stated in the film.

        I think you can agree to the above – right?.

        Looks more and more like Aphan isn’t going to respond……

      • TonyG
        I love it!
        Fair, logical, rational post-

        “If you only want to discuss that, then I am afraid I cannot do so intelligently. I think, since you have not seen the movie either, you cannot do so either. Your “mission” is not based on first-hand knowledge of the subject under discussion. It is, instead, simply you repeating talking points raised by others who dislike its contents. I think that if you want to discuss the ‘disinformation’ contained in a movie, it is incumbent on you to actually view the movie in question first. To do otherwise is no different than reviewing a book on Amazon that you haven’t read. Your opinions of a movie you have not seen are irrelevant, and worthy of summary dismissal. As are mine, which is why I won’t discuss it. ”

        Wackadoodle, inexperienced, sheeple post-
        JM replied-
        “We both know what to expect in the movie. Why are you eager to see it? Perhaps because you expect it to say things in accordance with your cognitive biases? Why do WUWT people here recommend it? Same reason?” (John, I was eager to see Jurrasic Park, and Titanic, and Lord of the Rings, Star Wars too…along with hundreds of MILLIONS of other people…not because we expected them to “say things in accordance with our cognitive biases”. Excitement and/or personal interest in the topic, events, stories, or even the *gasp* “slick graphics”!)

        “Means you have made a decision on this movie prior to actually viewing it. We all fall victim to that problem sometimes”. (Yep..YOU DID before you started posting here on the movie didn’t you? It’s SOOOOOO weird to be excited (or suspicious of) to see a movie you haven’t actually viewed yet! Millions of people do it every single day John! But that millions of people do it, does NOT equate with TonyG and every other person here actually doing it. You understand that right?)

        “On my part, I expect there to be a great deal of misinformation in it. I already pointed out one example – based on an advertising clip – to Aphan, but no response so far, from her or anyone else.”
        (John, you pointed to an article in which an author and three of his buddies give their OPINIONS about an outtake A MOVIE CLIP….in the exact words of the TITLE- “Scientists Slam Movie Clip from Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary as “Patently Stupid” and Misleading”.

        (Now boys and girls, let’s review…does the title of the Desmog Blog article state “This movie is unscientific?” No. Do ANY of the people quoted in the article state “This movie is unscientific”? Or inaccurate? Or false? Nope. Who is the only person so far who has claimed that “this movie is unscientific”? JohnMacdonell….who has not seen the movie. Yes, John makes crap up about people, even the AGW scientists he agrees with.)

        “All that said, I agree with you completely that the discussion of the film is best done after its screening – which is what I meant, but was not clear about(sorry). This means starting in on Climate Hustle probably tomorrow.”

        John, if you do not WATCH the movie for yourself tonight, then every single comment you make here starting tomorrow is NOTHING MORE than he said/she said/ magpie repetition of someone else’s opinion. Gah…You do not merit discussing the movie WITH. If you do not present factual, scientific points discussed in that movie along with supporting evidence for your point of view either way, Gah… then you do not merit discussing that movie with.

        “If some discussion of AGW evidence creeps in(it has to) – that will be great.”

        LOLOLOL. You present ONE THING that qualifies as actual scientific evidence of AGW-along with the evidence you believe qualifies that thing as actual evidence (rather than mere correlations, estimates, model runs, opinions, interpretations, guesses etc), any old time you want to. We’ll discuss it with a super focused, laser like, attention to details and scientific formulas and equations until your fingers fall off from fatigue. But you’d better present yourself as a logical, rational, well informed and factual representative from whatever “team” you are speaking for, because our patience wears thin really quickly.

      • JM
        ???…???

        LOL!
        You said:
        “Most of the rest of your reply I ignore out of courtesy.” (oh I am SO not interested in your courtesy!)

        ‘….but for some illogical, unscientific, cognitively challenged reason, you declare that you KNOW what we all think, want, believe, and expect! ‘ The next time you engage in that kind of insult we won’t be discussing anything. You will come to know what ??? as a response means. Heads up. (or your threats)

        Looking forward to a constructive, on-target response from you. Cheers.”

        You told TonyG- “You claim to like honest discussions – well, so do I. So we agree on that.” And yet you constantly misrepresent TonyG, me, Graham Readfern, the article at DeSmog Blog, and TWO video clips from the movie! TonyG called you out too- “I am commenting on how you appear to be coming across to me. You say I’m accusing you of things that are flat-out untrue, well, you’re doing the same. It works both ways, right?”

        I would be happy to cut and paste all the examples of you being non-constructive, off target, and insulting in one post for everyone here to examine for themselves if you’d like. But you need to understand that no one here has expressed the desire, or longing, or anticipation of discussing anything with you, so your promises that “we wont be discussing anything” or “you will come to know what ??? as a response means” are impotent as well as irrelevant.

        You can also ASK for certain niceties to be present in responses to you, but you do not get to demand them, or expect them from anyone else, especially if you continue to engage in the opposite of what you’d like. Like this post to TonyG-
        “Let’s wait until tomorrow when we’re likely to hear a great deal of what statements are made in the film.
        Let’s keep discussions respectful – no ad hominems, insults, personal attacks.
        Let’s just stick to the things stated in the film.
        I think you can agree to the above – right?.”

        You don’t get to determine who responds to your posts or not. You don’t get to determine who you talk to and who you don’t. You don’t get to determine ANYTHING here except for the contents of your own posts. Maybe tomorrow things will start off differently. Maybe not. But if you want to talk about actual statements made in the film, you’d better have accurate quotes, because if you come in here only to talk about what someone else said was said in the film, you’re doomed. Because we WILL be discussing whether or not your accuracy at representing things other people have (or have not) said has improved.

      • JM,

        What question did you ask me? In this thread or another? If another, either provide the link to your post or copy and paste the question here.

        If you are AGAIN referring to the article at DeSmog…I will AGAIN point out that the author makes personal, not factual, CLAIMS about how HE interpreted the clip. I’m paraphrasing, but he claimed that “slick graphics ” seemed INTENDED (assumption) to make the increase in global CO2 seem so small it couldn’t possibly be responsible for climate change. The updated article says Morano informed them that particular clip is not in the movie.

        NOW, the rules of logical discourse don’t allow you to give personal assumptions the same weight as facts. If the clip is not accompanied by narration that STATES something so specifically that one could only be led to conclude X, it is illogical and biased to conclude X without eliminating all other possibilities.

        For example:
        “We both know what to expect in the movie. Why are you eager to see it? Perhaps because you expect it to say things in accordance with your cognitive biases? Why do WUWT people here recommend it? Same reason?”

        1. How do YOU “know” what anyone aside from yourself expects in the movie without ASKING them. Your arguments are entirely without empirical evidence to support them! Is that how you operate/ cognate when it comes to scientific FACTS too? Or are you just an inconsistent thinker depending on the topic?

        Oh wait…you DO ASK, but then you argue that you know more about the person you asked than they know about themselves!

        To TonyG-“Why are you eager to see it?
        I’m not. Never said I was. You are ascribing motives where none exist”

        “I say you are. And virtually everyone here at WUWT, is, too. That’s why you’re in this group – ”

        My word! Have you perfected the “Because I Said So” (BISS) formulation??? Call the Nobel Committee, we have a new system for declaring something as fact! Just ask John Macdonell!

        ANYONE who has even a passing knowledge of WUWT, KNOWS that the majority of regulars here define scientific fact as: “Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).”

        When discussing climate science, we constantly hold each other to that standard and note publicly when what someone is saying doesn’t merit that designation. What I expect from Climate Hustle is EVIDENCE that supports Marc’s claims. I expect him to teach people like you, the difference between a FACT and an opinion, a flawed hypothesis and a validated theory, or perhaps the Scientific Method and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

        Now, I cannot KNOW for myself whether it does that or not, unless I view it for myself. Unlike you, I refuse to depend on what others think or tell me, even if I trust or agree with that person in general. I’m a SKEPTIC, by nature, and in all things. I need and want facts, indisputable evidence, validated formulas, consistent results, the highest degree of accuracy possible AND the error margins prominently displayed every time. I want to compare, dissect, examine, and explore all options. Consensus means NOTHING to me if you cannot give me solid, duplicatable, verifiable, empirical evidence that refutes every other possibility outright.

        You don’t know me. Or TonyG, or anyone here personally. You don’t know Morano, or the scientists in his movie, or even what is IN the movie, but for some illogical, unscientific, cognitively challenged reason, you declare that you KNOW what we all think, want, believe, and expect! You can behave as politely as possible here, but it is what you have already made apparent from your approach and presumptions that some of us will find completely offensive, disgusting, and so logically flawed that it’s not worth responding to.

      • Aphan,

        I think he was referring to the SS article about CO2. A topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum on WUWT.

      • Hi Aphan,

        Thanks for responding.

        The place where you failed to respond can be found if you search for this in this same thread:

        “Thanks for the advice.” Ctrl-F works fast(I’m sure you know that).

        We agree on the definition of scientific fact. Better than agreeing on nothing.

        Most of the rest of your reply I ignore out of courtesy.

        “….but for some illogical, unscientific, cognitively challenged reason, you declare that you KNOW what we all think, want, believe, and expect! ” The next time you engage in that kind of insult we won’t be discussing anything. You will come to know what ??? as a response means. Heads up.

        Looking forward to a constructive, on-target response from you.

        Cheers.

  18. Why on Earth would they include Sarah Palin on a panel discussion?

    That won’t win our side any points

  19. “Every time I think we really are slicker and smarter than the clumsy, propaganda spewing alarmists, I see us doing something that reeks of bad judgment. . Why oh why sarah palin, indeed. What’s to be gained? Nothing.

    What’s go to be lost? Credibility, that’s all.”

    Took the words right oughtta my mouth, Aneipris. Sarah Palin can’t string together a coherent thought and will drag this event into buffoonery. I hope we can do better.

    • While I agree that adding Palin to the panel is a terrible mistake, saying she can’t string together a coherent sentence is ridiculous. Did you forget that she beat Biden in the vice-presidential debate in 2008? Did you also forget that her critics had to eat crow when she turned out to be right about seeing Russia from a place in Alaska?

      She doesn’t belong on a climate panel but she’s not the idiot the media portrays her to be.

      • Yeah, wasn’t it Biden that asked a man in a wheelchair (on stage) to stand up while the audience was applauding him?

      • Forget what the media says about her. Just observe her recent behavior. Looks like early dementia to me.

      • Indeed, Governor Palin is not an idiot. She won the election in Alaska by destroying the corrupt and entrenched energy bosses. Donald Trump, who seems to be trending toward winning the POTUS contest has suggested Governor Palin as Energy Secretary.
        To those ignorant knee jerkers who spout the libtard talking point hatred about Governor Palin, most thinking people associate you correctly with Tina Fey, Katie Couric and their ilk.
        Cheers,
        Gudolpops

      • scraft1-
        “Just observe her recent behavior. Looks like early dementia to me.”
        What recent behavior? Are you stalking her? Are you recording your encounters to back up your comments? Are you her next door neighbor? Are you a medical expert in dementia? Because expecting people to believe your every word on the internet, without any evidence to support them, reeks of narcissistic, grandiose delusions. Just sayin. :)

    • Jeez you must be REALLY new here or you would know how cockeyed that the gibberish spewed by the referenced site is…..

      • Desmog cockeyed? Prove it.

        “The clip uses slick film graphics to suggest that because carbon dioxide emitted by humans is only a small part of the atmosphere, it can’t influence the climate.” Prove this, too

      • The blog not accurate? Show us how that is true.

        (Quote): “The clip uses slick film graphics to suggest that because carbon dioxide emitted by humans is only a small part of the atmosphere, it can’t influence the climate. ” Show us how that is true

      • John Macdonell,

        I’ll try not to laugh or condescend while I point this out. I most likely will not succeed:

        (Quote): “The clip uses slick film graphics to suggest that because carbon dioxide emitted by humans is only a small part of the atmosphere, it can’t influence the climate. ” Show us how that is true”

        Um….that quote…is the OPINION of the person making the quote, Graham Readfearn . Graham FEELS that “the clip” (not the film or the director or any of the people appearing in the movie) “uses slick graphics to suggest ” something…he does NOT state that the film actually SAYS it, nor does he offer ANY PROOF that demonstrates that his OPINION “is true”. So, you cannot even “show us how what Readfearn said is true”. And the person making the claim, is the one who bears the burden of proof.

        The article contains this update from Brandan Demelle-“Marc Morano has contacted DeSmog via our comments section to say the clip featured and critiqued in this story was not in the final version of the film.”

        So, to review, YOU referenced an article in which GR gave his OPINION about what he THINKS is “suggested” by the “slick graphics” in a movie clip that isn’t even actually IN the movie itself. And you think you would know “cockeyed” if you saw it? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

    • I checked the link provided.

      What an embarasement!

      Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen
      Can you do better?

    • John,

      1. Understand that the desmog article reviews a “clip” that is not in the actual movie.
      2. None of the “scientists” quoted in the desmog article have seen the actual movie.
      3. None of the “scientists” quoted COULD say anything about the actual “science” presented in the movie, because they have not seen it.
      4. Someone with an OPEN MIND should be perfectly willing to watch the movie and see for themselves what it’s all about , rather than relying on the OPINIONS of others, no matter who or what status those others have been elevated to in one’s own OPINION.
      5. Dissent is allowed here of course, within the rules which are logical and clear. But if you want to be viewed as a worthy opponent, I suggest you stay logical and refrain from using logical fallacies or cognitive biases to argue your points. They will be seen and called out here. I suggest you bone up on your own knowledge of the actual facts, measurements, formulas, and standards of not only climate elements but the Scientific Method as well. Your statements here will be viewed by more intelligent, skilled, and well prepared examiners of this debate than any other site related to this issue . Be ready to handle their responses well. :)

      • Thanks for the advice.

        BTW, some people have seen the entire movie(pre-screening) and written about it. Also, actual evidence may be found in their advertising clips:

        This one claims warming temp drives CO2. Truth: each drives the other(positive feedback cycle):

        Movie claim:

        Truth:
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

        WUWT is perhaps the world’s foremost climate skeptic(denialist?) site.

        Why are YOU eager to see this film? Perhaps because it agrees with your cognitive biases? Means you’re making your decision on it before you’ve actually seen it. All of us fall victim to this problem at one time or another.

        Thanks to all the others who also responded to me. Really, I do appreciate it. But you are many, I am one, and I don’t have time to respond to everyone.

        Thanks for putting up with me

        PS someone claimed I was sent here. No, I was not. I got here by happenstance, really. More on that later, if you guys wish.

        So, for better or worse, I’ve chosen Aphan for now :-)

      • Historically, changes in CO2 always occur after changes in temperature. There are no instance where changes in CO2 occurred first.

      • JohnMacdonell,

        I’m not sure what your question actually is other than my thoughts /sentiments about the movie. I answered those elsewhere here today in this thread.

        You might also try addressing your questions/comments to a specific person because in threads like these, you could be responding to any number of people in a sub thread comment.

        Now, you have already displayed multiple examples of your propensity to declare that someone “says something” when in fact they did NOT say what you claim they did. You seem to have an inability to appropriately and accurately represent anything. For example, the clip you posted below.

        You state-“This one claims warming temp drives CO2. ”
        Fact- IT DOES. When climate changes dramatically, there is usually some other force at work…like the SS article points out-changes in Earth’s rotation triggers a shift. THEN….temps start to warm up, and as the earth/oceans warm, they release CO2…increases in CO2 always LAG (follow behind) temperature increases!!

        The question asked is not about what “drives” anything. It’s about does CO2 = global warming

        Question asked by narrator- “C02 equals a warmer world? True or false.”
        Dr. Robert Geigengak- (PhD Professor in Geology):”I don’t know, I mean it might be the other way around. Certainly a warmer world will lead to more Co2. But…um….I’m not impressed, that CO2 is a driver of global temperature.”

        Now, if you don’t understand that basics of why a warming world causes the oceans etc to outgas more CO2, then you have no business discussing the climate. Even the article you linked to from SS says the exact same thing! (Yet you seem to believe the clip and the SS article disagree!!!)

        “In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.”

        That is the exact same thing as saying “Certainly a warmer world will lead to more Co2″

        I just watched Graham Readfearn’s (A JOURNALIST….not a scientist) response to an animated movie clip produced by CDR Communications, that he thinks is wrong and it’s HILARIOUS!! He actually does not grasp, that the way the man made CO2 in the clip is represented is COMPLETELY accurate mathematically and grammatically! It depends on exactly what you are calculating-percentages of total atmosphere, percentages of natural CO2 to man made CO2, etc. HE may not LIKE the way it’s said, but it is in fact, completely accurate and scientific. Period. And Steven Sherwood’s response is even more hilarious….”all the blocks except for CO2 should have been clear because they aren’t greenhouse gases”. ROFL!! So what? They DO exist and they DO fill up 99.9% of the atmosphere! It would have been just as striking, if not more so, to see that ONE little dark red block of human CO2, and the handful of lighter red blocks, floating about in a mix of clear blocks showing how few and far apart those CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere in relationship to all of the other things in the atmosphere! Either way, human caused C02 in the atmosphere is incredibly tiny comparatively. The clip didn’t say it was discussing only “green house gases”, and there is ZERO indication of what came before or after the clip, which isn’t in the movie anyway! The production company could well have put that clip together on their own, and Morano nixed it. Production companies DO that….but you know that, right?

        You see…the point of the movie.,…as I understand it…is to demonstrate how false, skewed, inaccurate, and BIASED the information given to the public is when it comes from people who support the CAGW side. It’s going to expose how they only present ONE view of the facts, and suppress any other perfectly reasonable views as “absurd” or “wrong”. Grahams video response is proof that he knows nothing about the “science” and tilts at windmills. I’d love to see Graham’s video “rebuttal” in the movie as an example!

      • Thanks for a good reply. We don’t agree – but your reply is good. I’ve marked this to get back to you later. Kinda busy just now.

    • JohnMacdonnell says:

      Desmog cockeyed? Prove it.

      Check out WolframAlpha. Compare them with WUWT. Or use Alexa.

      Desmog isn’t doing so well. That’s because it’s an echo chamber of wild-eyed climate alarmists. Like ‘realscience’ and ‘hotwhopper’. And ‘skepticalscience’ is run by a neo-Nazi.

      Draw your own conclusions…

  20. There is the Nye-effect, which started the policy of CAGW sycophants NEVER debating skeptical climatologists with PhDs on MSM TV programs.

    Here is Nye’s debate with Dr. Lindzen on CNN, which started the Nye-effect. Talk about deer in the headlights…. It was hilarious to watch:

  21. Bill Nye is fully in favor of throwing into jail those of us who disagree with the warming alarm bell ringers. As far as I’m concerned, he’s just a putz at this point, looking for attention like a number of other people who jump on a popular bandwagon.

    He has a lot of useless opinions like that. He should learn when it’s best to not stick his oar in.

    • Maybe it would be good to have Bill Bye appearing in the movie explaining what a fraud the whole movie is and what the ‘real deal’ is. It would add to the great undoing.

  22. goldminor – Thanks – good to know that on-topic posts will always be posted.

    BTW, I shouldn’t be here that much – I’m only here now because of another site that used this site to hype “Climate Hustle”. I’m here only to alert people to the misinformation that film conveys.

    I’m wondering where the moderator found the phrase “s_u_id & mis_l_di_g” – in reference to Gore’s movie. It’s not in the judge link article.

    Would like you to point to a true-believer site that employs censorship.

    Thanks

    • Look in the right sidebar to answer your question. Or better yet, dry posting dissenting opinions on any pro-agw site, and see what that gets you

    • How can you “alert people to the misinformation that film conveys” when you have not even seen the film. Furthermore, the blog you cite as an authority, desmogblog, has not seen the movie either? Your superficial politeness does not mask your condescensing tone. You come here acting like some kind of missionary ministering to the ignorant savages.

      As to the warmist censoring blogs, you can start with Real Climate and proceed from there. The numbers are legion.

    • JohnMacdonell-

      I’m going to start calling this “JM LOGIC”-

      “I’m here only to alert people to the misinformation that film”…which I have not personally seen, so I cannot prove that it actually does contain misinformation, nor has Desmog seen it, but that doesn’t matter because they asked 3 people to review a clip that is not in the movie and those people’s personal opinions on that CLIP are like empirical evidence to me and somehow “prove” that the entire film is wrong…”conveys”.

      Is it just that it’s the weekend or are all the competent opponents just on vacation?

  23. goldminor – Thanks – good to know that on-topic posts will always be posted.

    BTW, I shouldn’t be here that much – I’m only here now because of another site that used this site to hype “Climate Hustle”. I’m here only to alert people to the misinformation that film conveys.

    I’m wondering where the moderator found that phrase – in reference to Gore’s movie. It’s not in the judge link article.

    Would like you to point to a true-believer site that employs censorship.

    Thanks

  24. goldminor – Thanks – good to know that on-topic posts will always be posted.

    BTW, I shouldn’t be here that much – I’m only here now because of another site that used this site to promote “Climate Hustle”. I’m here only to alert people to the lack of accuracy in that film.

    I’m wondering where the mod found that 3-word phrase – in reference to Gore’s movie. It’s not in the judge link article.

    Would like you to point to a true-believer site that employs censorship.

    • I consider Climate Change / Global Warming to be the biggest s_cam in the history of the world. That is my expert opinion after spending thousands of hours studying the subject.

    • JohnMacdonell April 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm
      “I’m here only to alert people to the lack of accuracy in that film.”

      Hi John did you on your own do a search so you could read the judge’s decision? Most here would have on their own.
      May I make a suggestion take some time and just look back at the last 3-6 months worth of of articles that have graced this blog.
      The topics can be all over the place, and there are scores of readers from all walks of life, from all corners of the globe putting in their views and contributions. Most of us have extensive educations in almost ever imaginable field of study or endeavor. To put it simply to most of the people here there is nothing new in the film. It is probably as much a historical treatise as scientific. When you hear only one sides “take” on the facts, your judgement is not going to be trustworthy. Worst you will have no warning of the deficiency.
      Of course the other side is going to tell you the film is unscientific, They have staked their reputations and integrity on their statements regarding climate change.
      Hang around a few days ask how people here how they came to the conclusions they did. You never know, your views may change.

      michael

      • Hi Mike,

        Thanks. I might do just that – hang around and ask people how they arrived at their conclusions. Who knows if I will change my mind?

        Q: Will any here change their mind – come to see the view of the accepted science?

        Q: What, if anything, would it take for you to realize your view is wrong and science is right?(I’m not telling you your view is wrong, I’m asking you what evidence would change your mind.)

        No open-minded person doesn’t know what will change their mind.

        Thanks for your reply.

        PS What can you tell me about the judge’s decision – info that isn’t in the mod’s link?

      • “No open-minded person doesn’t know what will change their mind.”
        Umm.. so they have to know in advance what will change their mind? I think you may want to re-phrase that definition of an open mind, if not re-think it.

        One might certainly imagine something that might change your mind. But if that thing doesn’t happen and you don’t change your mind……then that doesn’t seem very open minded, if you may have decided to ignore something else you hadn’t already imagined beforehand. That is how real learning takes place. Something you didn’t expect entered your brain.

      • Thanks. I might do just that – hang around and ask people how they arrived at their conclusions. Who knows if I will change my mind?

        Be prepared to know what you’re talking about :)

        Q: Will any here change their mind – come to see the view of the accepted science?

        I haven’t seen it go that way, but I have seen it go the other. Something to consider, though, when you say “accepted science”: How long was it “accepted science” that dietary cholesterol was bad for your health?

        Q: What, if anything, would it take for you to realize your view is wrong and science is right?(I’m not telling you your view is wrong, I’m asking you what evidence would change your mind.)

        I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally, I might reconsider things if I saw the predictions matching reality better, if I saw more raw data, and if I saw less of them trying to hide their data (search the archives if you want to know what I mean). And if I saw less of them trying to silence any dissent – that, to me, is a fairly sure sign of a weak position.

        No open-minded person doesn’t know what will change their mind.

        What would change YOUR mind? If there were glaciers over Wisconsin again, would you accept that AGW was an invalid theory?

    • JohnMacdonell
      April 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm

      goldminor – Thanks – good to know that on-topic posts will always be posted.

      BTW, I shouldn’t be here that much – I’m only here now because of another site that used this site to promote “Climate Hustle”. I’m here only to alert people to the lack of accuracy in that film.

      I’m wondering where the mod found that 3-word phrase – in reference to Gore’s movie. It’s not in the judge link article.

      Would like you to point to a true-believer site that employs censorship.

      Any AGW belief site will censor remarks pointing out the futility of their idiocy.

      You seem convinced. Lemme show you, the difference between say… you – and me.

      You claim to believe science. I tell you, that you’re too dumb to even tell me the name of the law for calculating temperature of air in chemistry.

      Show me you know it’s name, the equation, and point out the green house gas factor that has to be added so the law of thermodynamics for calculating the temperature of gas, can actually calculate the temperature of gas.

      Atmospheric chemistry is my bag. I say not only is there no Green House Gas Effect, but that only an idiot who can’t count, would believe a frigid bath of turbulent fluids bocking double digits percent light to a sun warmed rock,

      made it hotter than if it got 40% more sun warming the rock,
      and had no frigid bath of turbulent fluids conduction washing heat from it.

      See – your religion has a bad problem.It’s an energy inversion scam. Which is why it takes someone who doesn’t even have a clue how to find out the temperature of air
      to believe in it.

      Plus – there’s the fact that your scientific leadership got busted and confessed to adding every single tenth warming to a global database since 1998. Go see Phil Jones’ disastrous Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview where he was on suspension and confessed, after being seen in ClimateGate telling scientist John Christy, ”The scientific world would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data, and it isn’t statistically significant.”

      Then there’s his employer Met Office’s 2013 press release ”The Recent Pause In Warming”

      where they trotted out 3 papers they wrote on how they know
      everybody else knows,
      they know it hadn’t warmed for the ’15 year pause in global warming beginning in 1998′.

      Then there’s the fact your scientific leadership told congress the world was going to end because a magic climate math program whispered that – some trees said the world was going to end.
      But that he couldn’t give congress his special climate math program because the world might not end. And he might have to sell his program that said the world was going to end for a lot of money, since he would need some money because the world might not end like the program said.
      Then he forgot the program on an ftp server, a guy downloaded it and showed the world – look guys – here’s the code –
      hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of hockey stick shaped graphs.
      From calibration data.

      Then there’s the fact your leadership James Hansen told you the law of thermodynamics in chemistry for calculating the temperature of gas and air,
      can’t calculate the temperature of air. Because of magic. He told you the temperature of Venus can’t be calculated using ”our laws of thermodynamics at least as we know them.”

      But he was lying, he just told you that because he knew he could get away with lying to the people of the country the way the government lies in that other chemistry scam, ”Pot is like Heroin.

      And ”Man created the Ozone Hole.”

      And then there’s your leadership Michael Mann suing a man who called him a liar and Mann lied in the filing: saying he won a Nobel he never one – so the man was calling a Nobel laureate a liar.

      Then there’s Keith Briffa with his ”6 trees told HIM the world was going to end” scam when he used trees not even quasi-legit ‘treemomitur whispur purfessurs’ will use.

      Then there’s Kevin Trenberth’s legendary misreading of CERES data that would put an insurance actuarial tables guy to sleep, as ”catastrophic ever accelerating global warming.’ When he was then seen crying in ClimateGate that there wasn’t any global warming: nothing but cooling, cooling, cooling, and nobody to blame, no way to escape the fact that – they had no f*****n’ idea why it stopped warming.

      You’ve got a lot to learn so you start by learning the name of the law for calculation of the temperature of gas: It’s equation, and then the factor you have to add for that ”Green House Gas” effect.

      Then when you can do that, you can explain how a frigid bath, blocking light so that double digits’ energy is lows,
      conduction washing that lessened energy density from the surface to emit it
      from an overall colder, larger, combined total mass, isn’t cooling multiple times and is in fact, a giant heater in your head.

      That’s called science when I remind everybody you don’t even know the name of the law for calcuation of the temperature of air; not it’s formula, not what all the factors in the equation mean, and you don’t know where the green house gas effect factor is in it either. Because there isn’t one and yet the law of chemistry for calculating temperature of gas calculates the temperature of Venus right on the money. The temperature of earth? Right on the money. The temperature of things in kilns, engines, motors, furnaces, air conditioners – they all work just fine with the law of thermodynamics written for solving temperature so

      when you get a good enough grip on what you’re trying to say that you can calculate the temperature of some air just fine, then you can explain to us all, how the scammers
      whose
      chemistry scam
      sent you over here so unarmed you can’t even count,

      discovered ”the laws of thermodynamics as we know them just don’t work any more” like your scam leadership told you.

      Any site you go on that believes in AGW will ban you and stop printing what you say if you remind them the laws of thermodynamics for calculation of temperature of gas still expressly forbid your religion being real.

      Bet on it.

      So you go ahead and make your case, I just made a TINY part of mine.

      Then later you can explain to me and all the people here why the infrared astronomy field doesn’t keep mankind updated about the ever rising Backerdistical Hotterisms they told you are boiling oceans.

      Before we pointed out to them and now you, that – GHG emitted light doesn’t warm water it enforces an evaporative effect on the surface that actually COOLS the upper layer of water.

      When you come someplace where professional scientists from many fields pass through sometimes you’ll have a chance to see some arguments you are going to have to clear up in order to even pass go.

      You’ve seen the first half dozen. LIKE I TOLD YOU since what this is, is a temperature inversion scam, you’re going to see more bad physics with those thermo-billy hicks than if you were at a fusion convention in europe.

      And you also need to get by the KooK science taught above: how those men could utter such preposterous and ludicrous things, and you not know they did, and what you now plan to do about knowing. Justify their being caught FAKING WARMING 12 YEARS and telling you the temperature of air can’t be calculated any more. Explain it all.

      Since you didn’t know the law of thermodynamics for calculation of temperature works just fine, and there’s no ”runaway green house effect on Venus” like Hooterville Hansen told you –

      there’s two articles here named ”Hyperventilating on Venus/Venus Envy” – where climate blogger Steve Goddard discovered that – the laws of thermodynamics for calculation of temperature work just fine and calculate the temperature of Venus perfectly.

      Particularly note where Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl comes by Goddard’s post, and says ”I”m going to DEBUNK YOU! : )
      Then goes to his own website, calculates the temperature of Venus himself according to standard gas equations and exclaims he’s surprised nobody checked. – Goddard’s right: There’s no Green House Effect on Venus. None.

      So get it out of your head there is something called a Green House Effect in the law of thermodynamics for gas chemistry, the law actually, outright forbids it.

      Cheers from an applied atmospheric chemistry expert who knows the laws of thermodynamics work just fine, which is why your science leadership, got caught scamming fraudulent warming for 15 + years and counting.

      • WOW. Thanks for all of that information! I’ve been a skeptic from the beginning of this whole nonsense but until recently I wasn’t very active in following the “assertions”. So I want to thank you very much for laying part of it out–because I had no idea the alarmists had gone that far. I am aghast…can’t calculate temperature accurately? WHAT? *facepalm*. I don’t have much time today (need to get to moving my raspberry plants) but I will definitely look into what you’ve posted. Thanks for taking the time.

  25. I’m disappointed I can’t see it, however it will be shown in ultra liberal territory in Wisconsin though. Hopefully it will be released on dvd or whatever.

  26. Bill might have a little more credibility with me if he would ditch the bow tie for a regular tie, but it still wouldn’t be very much credibility. Sorry all you bow tie wearers out there, but a bow tie just screams, “DON’T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!” A guy in a bow tie just looks like a dufus. Better to wear no tie than a bow tie.

  27. If Climate Hustle comes to Belgium I will take my daughters to see it (they are interested in science and astronomy) – to counteract the AGW propaganda they feed them at school.

    • Was only going to see it myself, or take my husband. But I loathe Bill Nye so much more now, I’m taking all my kids and anyone else who wants a free night out and I’m telling them that Bill Nye is too biased and too scared about this movie to even see it before he condemns it. And I’m going to hand out bow ties as well. :)

      • Aphan, that’s a great idea.

        I think it’s safe to assume that a fair number of the attendees will be WUWT lurkers or commenters. I’m thinking of wearing a bow-tie now. Only those who caught this post and read our comments would be in on the ‘secret signal’ and a very inside joke. “Tell ’em Bill sent ya.”

        Maybe I’ll wear the name tag
        HELLO
        My Name Is
        Bill Nye

      • HAHAHAHA H. R!

        None of the people I’m taking have ever heard of WUWT. I intend to invite them to join us too. You know, if every WUWTer invited at least one other person to join them at the movie, especially someone who is either on the fence about the climate debate, or unsure, or an AGW supporter,even completely oblivious to it can you imagine the impact? And we could make sure that Bill Nye heard that his own words were the reason for it’s raging success. :)

        I’m a climate DeNYE-er!!! And bowties are cool! (Dr. Who) I wonder if he’d stop wearing them if skeptics made it their badge of honor?

        Yes. I am evil.

      • Oh… I don’t think I can talk Mrs. H.R. into wearing a bow-tie, Aphan.

        There are some things up with which she will not put.
        (A shout out the the pedants out there. Hi, ya’ll!)

  28. Too bad it is showing at least two hours away from me (4 hour round trip). Would definitely like to support the effort.
    But why on earth would Sarah Palin of all people be a part of the after-show “discussion panel”?
    The woman, from everything I’ve seen/heard from her, is dumb as a box of rocks and not someone whose scientific (or political ) opinion I’m the least bit interested in. My dog thinks better than she does.
    I don’t believe I’m the only person who thinks her presence will be a considerable detraction from the otherwise important showing.

    • msbehavin-

      So purchase two tickets at that location and “donate” them to someone who lives in that city! You’d be supporting the cause, you’d be informing two more people, and who can resist a FREE MOVIE night?

      Time to put our money and our efforts where our mouths are. :)

  29. Canada is the second largest country in the world. But this is only showing in one theater. I would really have loved to go. Thinking of buying tickets even though I can’t go.

    • It’s most likely a distribution thing Jeff. The company promoting the film-Fathom- is co-owned by AMC Entertainment, Cinemark Holdings and Regal Entertainment Group. Do those companies operate in Canada? Theaters have to be willing to contract with Fathom Events in order to show the film, and I’m willing to guess that most of the theaters showing it Monday are owned by AMC, Cinemark, or Regal.

  30. Bill Nye the Lysenko “Science” Guy, thanks for the lead on something I can’t wait to see!

  31. I think everything one needs to know about Bill Nye is contained in this neat presentation:

    Bill Nye: “The main thing is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change got a Nobel Prize! They got a scientific prize for making a discovery! They didn’t get a minor award. This is a big deal! They discovered climate change, through all kinds of evidence!”

    Bill Nye: “This thing of denying science … To deny what scientists or scientific evidence is showing is inappropriate, and as I said earlier, to me when I get wound up, it’s unpatriotic!”

    IPCC got a Scientific Nobel Peace Prize. For discovering climate change. Through all kinds of evidence. Denying science is inappropriate and unpatriotic.

    • Bill Nye has a busy schedule on TV shows as a scientific expert on snow storms, life after death, football inflation, Christianity, Nobel prizes, patriotism, national security and evolution. He’s thinking about getting a PhD in applied physics or fluid mechanics but that’s a seven- or eight-year commitment and he’s busy. He also wants to be an astronaut, wage war on anti-science politics, make a movie and save the planet from asteroids.

      Oh, and President Obama lights up when he sees him.

      http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/01/bill-nye-interview-asteroids-climate-science-politics

      • As the male winner in the ‘Some people will do anything to save the planet except take a science course” contest, maybe he should get together with Emma Thompson, the female winner and poster child wannabe.

        …. and have no carbon breathing horrible children.

        I doubt that he could anyway. I believe that he lives in the same city as me. Never had the pleasure though. It won’t be nice …..

  32. That she did not name one does not automatically equate with her being “unable” to. That is YOUR assumption. Being either reluctant to, or unable to, name one ALSO does not automatically equate with stupidity or lack of intelligence. That is another, illogical assumption. Assumptions are not FACTS. Your entire argument here is built on flawed premises, so why would a rational person accept it?

    Let’s examine your propensity to pretend to read minds further, as well as your sterling logical consistencies:

    “You are correct about Couric’s “agenda”……she wanted to show America who the person that MIGHT be a heartbeat away from the nuclear codes was. The video speaks for itself.”

    Your illogical assumptions-
    1. Not responding with the name of one paper or magazine title is all it takes to show America who someone is.
    *America is fully aware that Joe Biden is “a heartbeat away from the nuclear codes”, as well as the fact that our current president has made many actual outright, stunningly idiotic statements and voted for them both TWICE! So even if your logic worked, Americans obviously don’t care about stupid behavior/actions.
    2. The video speaks for itself, yet YOU keep pretending that the video can or does “speak to” something it cannot speak to- the intelligence of the woman being interviewed! It records the question and the response. Period. It does not explain anything.

    Have you personally EVER been near, or close to, or even read a BOOK about a day in the life of a busy politician or executive? I’ll say no, because you seem to be oblivious to what a “daily briefing” entails for people who are so freaking busy that to sit down with a newspaper and read it front to back would be a rare and unusual luxury!

    They have assistants and employees that comb all media forms-digital, printed, local and national and bring them to the table daily to keep these people “informed” on current events, topics of local and national importance, etc. Those staff members who have physically printed matter, bring a page with the item circled, or compose an email or listing of relevant notes, reviews, or synopses . Thus, NO candidate today EVER sits down and flips through the New York Times, or the Washington Post and reads entire articles or stats everyday. They stay current by telling their staff to KEEP THEM CURRENT.

    Katie Couric isn’t THAT “stupid”. She KNOWS this. She’s observed countless politicians and executives. She engages in it herself! If Sarah Palin had just ranted off a list of the most influential media sources, we wouldn’t be having this discussion! And neither one of us would KNOW or be able to PROVE she has ever read any of them! If she actually DOES have her staff read and highlight facts from “any and all” sources, which an honest person who cares about balance and facts and information from “everywhere” WOULD DO…then she answered the question HONESTLY. And God forbid she intakes all that information. DAILY, but doesn’t take the time to memorize the exact publication each one comes from.

    Your argument is biased, illogical, and without a shred of evidence to back up your claim of “stupid”.

    • Ron Manley,

      I never said the interview made her look like a genius. I said it had ZERO power to indicate whether or not SHE was “stupid”…as in unintelligent. If someone made YOU look like an “idiot” (which is not the same thing as saying that someone made you FEEL like an idiot, or revealed that you ARE an idiot) I’m sure you wouldn’t like it anymore than she did! Who would?

      But again, I can watch someone do things I would define as incredibly stupid behavior, or say things that I think sound stupid, without accepting those actions or words as proof that the person acting or speaking IS STUPID or unintelligent. You put a microphone in front of yourself or Miso or anyone with a genius IQ all day and show me that none of you would ever say or do something that another person would view as “stupid”.

      [Note: The commenter is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

  33. One place the movie could have been stronger was the discussion of the bogus 97% consensus claim. They noted that Peter Doran’s “97%” was really only 77 scientists. But they failed to mention that:

    1. Doran & his graduate student did not poll just 77 scientists. They polled 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions, of whom 3146 responded. But 97.5% of the scientists who responded were excluded from by Doran after their responses were received.

    Of 3146 responses received, only 79 responses were considered by Doran for his “97%” calculation: the 2.5% who specialized in “climate science.” (That’s a fundamental blunder, like polling medical professionals about the efficacy of homeopathy, but excluding everyone who responds except practicing homeopaths.)

    2. Two of the 79 remaining specialized climate scientists were climate skeptics who answered “remained relatively constant” to the question, “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

    Doran excluded them, too!

    3. That left just 77, and Doran found that 75 of them of them (97.4%) answered “yes” to the question, “”Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    Of course, that’s the wrong question. The best evidence is that anthropogenic warming is modest and benign. Combating global warming would only be worthwhile if global warming were, in President Obama’s words, “real, man-made and dangerous.” Doran’s survey didn’t even ask that question.

    • The movie could have also contrasted that 75 scientists with the 31,487 American scientists (including engineers in relevant specialties) who have signed the Global Warming Petition, signifying our agreement with this statement:

      “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    • One place the movie could have been stronger was the discussion of the bogus 97% consensus claim.

      Yeah – that is definitely a weak spot. I always enjoy when someone tries telling me “97% of scientists agree”. I ask them “Doran Zimmerman or Cook et al?” and they get very confused. Then when I point out that they should probably know the source of the information they’re citing, they generally want to change the subject…

Comments are closed.