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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tickets bought. Looking forward to seeing the movie.
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!)
A bad review sells more books than no review at all. Thanks for the nod, Nye.
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. 🙂
Excellent suggestion Aphan!
Re: “Bill Nye the Fascist Guy”. I see a bumper sticker here.
Will the video be available later on Amazon?
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.
Bill Nye the Lysenko “Science” Guy, thanks for the lead on something I can’t wait to see!
I think everything one needs to know about Bill Nye is contained in this neat presentation:
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 …..
The IPCC discovered climate change? I didn’t know that.
What is the purpose of this film?
The purpose of the film is to educate the average person that there is another side to the story of global warming.
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]
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…
Will Europeans get a chance to watch it?