'Climate Hustle' film shows nationwide tonight, get your tickets now

CFACT’s groundbreaking film Climate Hustle will be shown in movie theaters across the United States for a special one-night event, tonight, playing at hundreds of movie theaters across the country. As a service to readers, I’m posting up this reminder today. I’m in the film, but I’m not paid to be in the film nor to post this message.

Here is my review from one week ago (with trailers):

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

Here’s what the Washington Times had to say about it, and the controversy surrounding it.

Even before the skeptical documentary “Climate Hustle” hits U.S. theaters Monday, it already has unsettled the climate change debate.

Weather Channel founder John Coleman rushed to the defense of the film, which challenges the catastrophic climate change narrative, after “science guy” Bill Nye slammed it in a clip released over the weekend as “not in our national interest and the world’s interest.”

“I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie,” Mr. Coleman said Saturday on the website Climate Depot.

“As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the [American Meteorological Society] Meteorologist of the Year award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does,” Mr. Coleman said. “And I am rooting for the ‘Climate Hustle’ film to become a huge hit — bigger than ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore.”

Indeed, the documentary by Climate Depot’s Marc Morano bills itself as a response to the former vice president’s Academy Award-winning 2006 documentary, which sparked international alarm with its warnings of imminent environmental disaster fueled by rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.

“The film’s most effective moments come when left-of-center experts describe how they abandoned their previous climate change positions,” Mr. Toto says in his review. “Doing so opened them up to scathing critiques from their colleagues.”

More here

So, let’s head to the movies on tonight, ask the questions and learn the facts the “climate hustlers” don’t want us to think about, and laugh them off the world stage together.

If you haven’t already, invite a friend who thinks the world is going to hell in a hand-basket due to climate change to sit back and take in the reality with some popcorn. Get a large bucket, you’ll need it.

http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

217 thoughts on “'Climate Hustle' film shows nationwide tonight, get your tickets now

  1. Would like to see the movie, but driving a 100 miles each way, no thanks. Hopefully it will be on NetFlix soon.

    • Over 2-1/2 hour drive for us. Do hope they make enough on their one-night-stand to soon pass it on to NetFlix.

      • Yet another inconvenient truth…
        It is either 1hr & 20 minutes to Napa or 1 hr & 15 minutes to San Rafael. (too long of a drive that late at night on the return trip…Damned inconvenient)
        I’ll support by buying the DVD when it comes available.
        Hopefully it is SO well received that it gets a wider distribution soon afterwards.
        And becomes required viewing in Social Studies Classes

    • C’mon you guys! I travel 2 hours each way to do my shopping every month! You lot who have already decided it’s too far won’t change your minds – and I won’t try and make you – but for others, heck, make a day of it! I’d be there myself, except I’m in Australia – now that IS too far.

      • Both roads between my home town and where they are playing are somewhat treacherous during daylight hours and practically insane after sundown so Sorry Charlie but unless it were playing locally, no can do

      • Bryan, I am not criticizing you. I know what treacherous roads are like – I live in the mountains and have to contend with not just winding roads and cliff drops but huge logging trucks coming the other way as well.
        Mainly I just want to see this film do really. No offense meant to anybody. 🙂

    • The theater in Fairfax, VA was FULL. Got there at 6:55 and had to sit in the second row. Great film but could see the chroma key effects.

    • Looks like it is on for two days in Toronto. I see both the 2nd and 3rd as dates.
      Matt

  2. I haven’t been out to a movie in at least five years.
    We watch movies at home on our big screen TV with audiophile speakers.
    I find “Hollywood” movies in recent years have too much violence, too much sex, too loud, and/or promote left-wing values, such as businessmen always being dishonest — all of that keeps my money away from “Hollywood”.
    BUT I’M DRIVING A HALF HOUR WITH THE WIFE TO SEE CLIMATE HUSTLE TONIGHT !
    I love comedies.
    And the climate change cult is a comedy.
    Left-wing scaremongering, trying to convince people that the current climate (probably the best climate in at least 500 years) is about to morph into the worst climate of all times … with NYC subways filled up with water … and all those new hotels on the Maldives atolls soon to be under the sea … is a comedy!
    How can anyone take the climate scaremongering seriously?

  3. Got my ticket. Theater is twenty miles from home, so I will make a night of it. Of corse I can’t get that damned tune “The Hustle” out of my head.

    • Thanks a lot for mentioning the ‘Hustle’. Took a moment to remember it, now it is on a loop.

  4. May be too late. Rumor is that all shows are sold out in accordance to the Paris debut standard …

  5. It would be of interest to know if any protestors showed up tonight at any sites. I don’t think there are enough on the payroll to cover 500 sites.

    • If they are protesting I would love to show up with a cattle prod but my moral compass won’t let me. I “can” run the possible scenario though my mind though and the resulting mental picture does bring a smile to my face.

      • Cattle Prods are a bit too tech. Think axe handles, or even better, Louisville Sluggers.
        (everyone’s entitled to their mind’s own private screening… in my movie, the protests shut down for a while, then the shirtless women show up with protest signs and their tits hangin’ out. The End.)

  6. Wish I could see it. I would have to book a flight on very short notice. The only theater showing it in Hawaii is in Honolulu.

  7. There is no way I’d pay to see this at movie theater prices, and that goes for any documentary. I’ll wait for for it to be on Youtube.

      • They don’t make ’em like they used to. My impression is they have all the ambience of a wal mart.

      • We have several local multiplexes. One, in Sebastopol, has 14 theaters. We went to see Holes there and the particular we sat in had 52 seats and an 128″ screen. Felt like I was sitting in my living room with a couple dozen strangers. Though I do remember 450 seat theaters with balconies and double features for 50cents

  8. I have an important prior commitmenm so I can’t go tonight. I would like a copy of the video to show to my grandchildren who have been subject to an inconvenient truth through schools for too long.

  9. Bought my ticket yesterday at a theater with multiple bill boards advertising every movie but Climate Hustle, Of course this IS Portland, Oregon. The young lady who sold me the ticket sort of gave me a pitying look.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • I should add that the theater I am going to is in the city. Another theater is showing it outside the city. where the more intelligent people live.
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • At my local theater in Bradenton Florida there weren’t any signs or billboards that I could find that promoted the show either.

  10. Unfortunately it will involve crossing the Atlantic for me to see it. Hopefully this will be an even bigger turning point for climate science than “An Inconvenient Truth was for climate “science”. Will look forward to seeing it in the future though.

  11. I saw a preview for it last night. I saw something about Sarah Palin being involved. Too bad politicians / former politicians or wanna be politicians were allowed anywhere near this film. Films like this should only have scientists, engineers and other credible professionals in them.

      • Simon, you’re just chomping at the bit to deflect to Sarah Palin — an elected state Governor, and a more accomplished person than you could ever hope to be.
        Go back in your corner and sit down, Simon. Yes, facing the wall. Your time out isn’t over. And keep that dunce cap on straight, young man!

      • Calm down dbs. Simon expresses what 99% of the people outside the US feel and 75% of those inside the US.

      • Chris Schoneveld May 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm
        Chris, don’t confuse your personal views with those of the U.S. let alone the world. Palin has a good size following in the U.S. I don’t think she will detract from the film. Now about that 99% for the rest of the world.
        Somehow I don’t think you could get 99% of these people to even recognize the name.
        If Sarah Palin has that type of name recognition world wide then she is most definitely a plus. (Provided she does a good presentation.) Remember this film is about changing viewpoints and furnishing people with information which one side of the argument does not wish them to have. They may just reappraise their view of Sarah Palin, as well as of CAGW & its supporters.
        Now Simon ,,,you would “see a problem for this film” irregardless as to whether or not Palin is in it. For you and all you believe and hold sacred, it is pure poison.
        It could really, really, upset the old apple cart for you.
        People getting to hear and see,,,make up their own mind with information from both sides of the discussion. Actually this is like a scene from the Wizard of Oz, CAGW is just hit with a cold bucket of water- screaming I’m melting. This being the only occasion of a CAGW prediction of “melting” being valid.
        michael

      • Trump President, Palin vice-president now that would be a shake up I would love to see.

      • No she was NOT a problem for the film because she was never in it.She was part of a Discussion Panel AFTER the showing of the movie in Washington D.C.

    • Concur. Sarah Palin has no credentials and is a nit wit to boot.
      [the same might potentially be said about you -mod]
      [Not even ‘potentially’. ~another mod]

      • Nitwit? Seems to me as if she is pretty sharp-witted. She not only had 80% approval (down to 60% after a hatchet job like I’ve never seen — and even 60% approval was the highest in the country for a guv).
        She managed to shoehorn a ton of money out of Big Oil for her constituents. Whether or not one approves or not, a nitwit is not how one describes someone who pulls that off.

      • I see your bigotry making you appear foolish,as it is clear you have no idea what her background is or what she did before she became Governor.

    • I’m gonna have to agree somewhat. Al Gore has been a very polarizing figure in the US, and his movie and his involvement in “global warming” has continued the polarization.

      • Sarah Palin has very sharp eyes, too. Fancy being able to see Russia from her place. Sorry, but that’s the stuff most of the world knows about her.

      • i.Sorry Kelvin, you just made yourself the idiot ! That is a false quote from Saturday Night Live ! Actual quote……. Interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”: Which, by the way, is 100% true !

        • Did she not say ” They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.” Now land in this context normally means mainland. If she meant “we have islands so close you can see Russia from them” she should have said so.
          And she doesn’t know the meaning of the word “diva.”
          Nor does she know that Africa is a continent and not an island.
          And she seems to think that minerals are energy.
          I could go on, but the one I love best is that “our neighbors are foreign states.” Duh. Unfortunately, the US does have foreign states as neighbours, by definition.
          Australia had an Member of Parliament like Sarah too, but being sensible people they dumped her. (I’m not Australian.)

      • Kelvin Duncan,
        Give it up, you lost the argument. You wrote:
        Now land in this context normally means mainland.
        And who elected you to decide the context? Land is land. No one ever specified “mainland”. The issue here is the head-nodders in the public, which apparently includes you, too.
        You’re desperate to believe the worst about someone, especially since it’s been proven to be untrue. Why is that?

        • Kevin:
          Kevin, I have yet to hear you apologize for spreading misinformation about Palin. You should well know by now, that you are confusing the actual Palin from a Saturday Night Live Skit. Never did Palin say she could see Russia from her house! Please repent from spreading misinformation. It will help in the healing process; if your quest is to seek truth rather than seek to win someone else’s misinformed arguments.
          WUWT tries hard to seek truth, through argument and research. A few keystroke and a little bit of skepticism goes a long way! Nothing is holding you back from getting to the truth.
          There I said it.

          • Mods:
            I spelled Kelvin’s name wrong in the previous post! The text I intended to send is corrected below.
            Kelvin:
            I have yet to hear you apologize for spreading misinformation about Palin. You should well know by now, that you are confusing the actual Palin from a Saturday Night Live Skit. Never did Palin say she could see Russia from her house! Please repent from spreading misinformation. It will help in the healing process; if your quest is to seek truth rather than seek to win someone else’s misinformed arguments.
            WUWT tries hard to seek truth, through argument and research. A few keystroke and a little bit of skepticism goes a long way! Nothing is holding you back from getting to the truth.
            There I said it.

    • I left at the end of the movie as the panel discussion was starting. I had need to hear anything involving Sarah Palin. Poor choice to include her.

    • Sarah Palin is on a panel @ the end. She didn’t really add anything, but she wasn’t really a detraction.

    • I agree, James. Sarah did not add value to the film. When she started talking at the end of the film during the panel discussion, I left.

  12. Saying a movie is “not in our national interest” is a bizarre critique. I don’t know quite what that’s supposed to mean.

      • That’s exactly what they meant. They are afraid of losing political power. Anyone who might take that power from them is the Devil Incarnate, as far as they are concerned.

    • “I don’t know quite what that’s supposed to mean.”
      It is the thinking of the business interests who sponsor him, give him money, supply his media reps, etc.
      Michael Mann is tainted, and James Hansen voted himself out of their good graces with his denouncing carbon trading as the fraud that it is. Nye is the current “face” purchased for the movement’s video agitprop.
      Since Nye’s funding is palpably corporate, there will be little interest here in uncovering it.

  13. the Climate Hustle film good or bad, I’d like to see it, if and when put on line.
    The other day I was reading biography of Mr. Bill Nye and was suitably impressed, then I came across this statement:
    “This year Greenland melted almost completely”
    https://youtu.be/umVW9T-7j3U
    I hope he is in the movie.

    • So you think he was saying the whole of Greenland melted away? Really. I can see why you don’t get Bill Nye.

      • Simon,
        If your HE-RO Bill Nye is the best you can do, you’re out of your league here. The guy has been wrong so often it’s ridiculous. But I suppose if he’s the best you can find, then you’ve gotta use him…

      • Simon the statement “This year Greenland melted almost completely” doesn’t leave any room for interpretation.

      • Hey, he threw in the scientifically precise word “almost” … so he clearly did not mean “all” of Greenland … there are some rocks there after all … in the same vein Bill Nye is “almost” a scientist …

      • Boys, boys, boys. This is not an IQ test. I think you will find he meant the surface area. But you go on believing what you want. And the meting was no surprise, after all it was an exceptionally warm arctic this year… Or did you miss that too?

      • Simon, simon, simon, This is an IQ test, and you flunked it. You wrote:
        “…it was an exceptionally warm arctic this year”
        Caused by Global Warming™? The same global warming that causes cooling?
        We keep telling you, you can’t have it both ways. Or did you miss that too?
        You are absolutely fixated on Arctic ice. Relax, it’s just natural variability. There’s nothing to worry about… unless you’re a worrywart, and you worry about everything. In that case, my condolences.
        Go find ‘seaice1’. He’ll say, “There, there…”

      • simon, “melted almost completely” doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.
        I do love the way you try to protect your idols from themselves, even when the cause is hopeless.
        I perceive much angst in your future. I hope you enjoy it as much as I’m going to.

      • The bubble head interviewer says “It shows nearly all of Greenland’s ice sheet melting, NASA was so stunned by these images, they thought they’d made a mistake”. When she asked him to explain why this was “so significant”, did he bother to correct her? No, he did not. Instead, he launched into his climate models speech.
        This was pure Alarmism, meant to deceive. It was an unusual event which occurred last in 1889, caused by a heat dome over Greenland. In terms of climate, it was meaningless.

      • MarkW
        If you seriously think Bill Nye is suggesting Greenland will melt away completely then good luck to you living in your little world. Some here, including you, are wishing to see him as the fool over this statement. Your inability to understand what he meant is a clear indication you are looking in the wrong direction.

      • Stop acting exasperated your dufus hero who thinks the law of thermodynamics for calculating temperature of gas is broken and you need magic to calculate temperature of air, said something as stupid as the temperature inversion movement you, and he, both belong to.
        There is no GHGE. The law of chemistry for calculating the temperature of gas forbids it expressly by assigning every gas in the atmosphere, from nitrogen to argon to oxygen to methane to carbon dioxide they all get the same specific energy in atmospheric mix calculations.
        If you knew how to calculate the temperature of air, you’d be smart enough to have known that.
        And that pot isn’t heroin,
        And that mankind didn’t create the ozone hole.
        Those are called ”Federal Government created chemistry scams.”
        You fell for at LEAST one. So – that leaves you with explaining maybe whether you fell for those other two, the one about the pot being heroin, and man creating the ozone hole.
        Your leadership admitted to BBC in Feb 2010’s Phil Jones don’t-go-to-jail interview that – he faked temperatures rising specifically since 1998, till when he was suspended and demoted from his job when caught admitting to other scientists he/they’d been doing that in the climategate emails.
        Your other leadership sued a man who called him a liar,
        lying in the filing he’d won a Nobel Prize he didn’t win:
        so the man who called him a liar,
        was calling a Nobel laureate,
        a liar.
        Then your other leadership James Hansen told you the law of chemistry for calculating the temperature of air, can’t do that, because it broke, and there’s magic nobody understands in solving temperature of air.
        No, he’s just a many times busted liar. The man who owns this site actually kinda started it after seeing your leadership’s dismal U.S. climate data gathering.
        You aren’t really very smart. You fell for a federal government created chemistry scam a STUDENT
        IN a HIGH SCHOOL – will point out patently defies multiple laws of thermodynamics.
        He gets the KooK who is, Bill Nye. He’s the ”laws of thermodynamics work” denier.
        Like you.

        Simon
        May 2, 2016 at 11:25 am
        So you think he was saying the whole of Greenland melted away? Really. I can see why you don’t get Bill Nye.

        He’s a quack. Like your fake Nobel lawsuit scammer Angry Bird Mann.
        Like your fake physical laws of thermodynamics are broken temp scam daddy Hansen.
        Like your fraudulent tree data scammer Keith Briffa
        Like your confessed dozen years + temps scammer Phil Jones.
        Like your busted ”It’s not hot and we can’t explain it oh, noes, what to do!?” CERES data scammer Trenberth.
        You’re here to bark at science from behind the ”Pot’s Like Heroin” and “Man created the Ozone Hole” chemstry fraud trademark: Federal Government.
        More chemistry scams,
        More public schoolers who can’t count, celebrating the court Jesters like the quack Nye.

      • Simon sez:
        If you seriously think Bill Nye is suggesting Greenland will melt away completely…
        Simon, he’s already said that.

      • Simon,
        “So you think he was saying the whole of Greenland melted away?”
        Almost completely, yes, I’m sure that’s what he said.
        Thanks for the live demonstration of what sort of people are pushing this climate shakedown . . Every little bit helps ; )

        • JohnKnight,
          You understand what BowTie was saying. I understand it. Others understand it.
          Only Simple simon doesn’t get it.

      • DBstealey
        OH dear DB still struggling with the concept two possible meanings and inference.
        Does “Greenland always melts a little every summer. But this year it melted almost completely” mean….
        1. All of Greenland is melting. The whole kit a kaboodle. All 1,710,000 square kilometers. Major sea level rise, major global problem all at once? A senario that is not possible on any level short of the sun exploding and frying everything in the solar system?…. Or?
        2. The whole surface is showing melting?
        Be careful DB this is not a trick question. It just needs you to know a little about Greenland and the rate that ice could possibly melt at.

      • PS~ “Some here, including you, are wishing to see him as the fool over this statement.”
        Not me, I’m wishing people to see him as the pathological liar I believe he is, slick ; )

      • No. ‘Lyin Bill Nye, the Alarmist Guy’ is just deliberately giving that impression while being careful not specifically saying it. Just as you are being deliberately obtuse, by pretending not to get that.

      • “1. All of Greenland is melting. The whole kit a kaboodle. All 1,710,000 square kilometers. Major sea level rise, major global problem all at once? A senario that is not possible on any level short of the sun exploding and frying everything in the solar system?…. Or?
        2. The whole surface is showing melting?”
        2. is what I’m sure NASA meant, and probably what BN meant. 1. Is what the TV interviewer and Bill Nye said. Their statements *can* be construed as “What they really meant to say was ” if you understand the context. But the plain ‘laymans terms’ sense of their statements is meaning 1. 99% of the people watching this do not know this context already and the interview does not provide it, so 99% of the viewers will come away from this interview with the picture created my meaning 1 in their heads.

      • I was staring at that picture for a while.
        I wasn’t sure if it was a real puppy or stuffed animal.
        Then I wasn’t sure if the puppy was face up or face down.
        Then I wasn’t sure if I was looking at the front or back.
        But I’m sure that puppy will be a chick magnet, because I just heard “That’s the cutest puppy I ever saw” from a girl looking over my shoulder.
        Sort of looks like me when I’m drunk and passed out.

    • MarkW
      If you seriously think Bill Nye is suggesting Greenland will melt away completely then good luck to you living in your little world. Some here, including you, are wishing to see him as the fool over this statement. Your inability to understand what he meant is a clear indication you are looking in the wrong direction.

      • Simon May 2, 2016 at 1:30 pm
        MarkW
        “If you seriously think Bill Nye is suggesting Greenland will melt away completely then good luck to you living in your little world.”
        Simon how do you arrive at the above statement
        from what MarkW posted below
        MarkW May 2, 2016 at 12:40 pm
        simon, “melted almost completely”
        MarkW was repeating what Bill Nye stated.
        Mark’s statement was past tense – what Bill Nye was telling the public. There was no suggesting or future tense in his remark. Learn to read carefully, concentrate Learn not to confuse who states what.
        Now apologize to MarkW for falsely accusing him of making a statement – prediction, that is the soul property of the 21st centuries Bozo the clown Bill Nye. (he is after all nothing more then a kids entertainer Like the old cartoon Ed Edd & Eddie, Hmm I think the old Bozo was more wholesome for kids.)
        michael

      • Nike the Moorlock
        “Simon how do you arrive at the above statement from what MarkW”
        I watched the video…. did you?

      • Simon May 2, 2016 at 2:55 pm
        I watched the video…. did you?
        Off course. and since you state you did you had to hear what Bill Nye stated. So now what are you going to do?
        michael

      • Context, Mike, context.
        It is perfectly clear what Nye meant. Maybe you do not want to comprehend it, but that is up to you.
        (Yeah I agree it could be expressed more unambiguously, but who cares. Unless you deliberately do not want to understand what he means given the question asked, it is clear enough. If you want to continue point scoring, be my guest :))

      • Wagen May 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm
        Context, Mike, context.
        No.
        Wagen
        The T.V. commentator’s key words, “It shows nearly all of Greenland’s ice sheet is melting.”
        Bill Nye’s answer. “Greenland always melts a little every summer. But this year it melted almost completely.
        As for scoring points, there are none to be had. There is no “glory” in it.
        The only conciliation prize is this fool is on your side and in all likelihood will continue to make idiotic and indefensible statements like the one we are discussing here.
        And you will probably have continue debasing and humiliating yourself in a never ending effort defending his stupidity here.
        til later
        michael

    • • At 0.40 the banner states –
      “HISTORIC MELTING OF GREENLANDS ICE
      97% of surface Ice melted in a week”
      As seen on TV so it must be true !!

    • Wait, NASA says “this much ice hasn’t melted this fast since 1889”.
      Wasn’t human CO2 emission caused then, so why is it now?

    • The climate models show tornado activity now?
      They can’t model clouds properly, but they generate tornadoes in northern regions? Bill Nye seems to think so.
      Is there anything they can’t do?

  14. To all those going, have fun. Stay safe, bring your phones. Be ready to film climate ugliness. I do not expect the climate activists to allow anyone to view this film in peace and quiet. They can’t tolerate any other view, or their dogma being called into question.
    I suggest, if confronted, don’t try to explain, justify, correct or clarify your knowledge and views on the subject. Just smile and wave and go enjoy the movie. Don’t be baited. If harassed, record it.
    Again, stay safe have fun.
    michael

  15. Wish I could go!! Nationwide does not include the cities north of Milwaukee or Madison.. 🙁 2 hour drive 1 way for me to go see it tonight. It needs to hit Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu (or heck all 3 would be nice) soon!!!

  16. Why just one night? I’d love to go, but heavy, perhaps dangerous, storms are expected tonight, and I have trouble with night driving even in good weather, so I plan not to risk it. When will it be shown on a regular schedule, and when will it be available as a rental?

  17. Catastrophic ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change theme.
    There is an unmistakable correlation between the current carbon-based reduction, recycling, and sequestration theme and ongoing carbon-based control schemes, including selective-child policies in liberal societies, and formerly one-child policies in far left societies.

  18. Hopefully they’ll release this on DVD and to streaming services like Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and iTunes. Assuming they’re not in a prison camp for speaking truth to power.
    When asked whether criminalizing scientific skepticism was too extreme, Bill Nye responded “We’ll see what happens”. In the mean time, Obama is seriously working on this final solution, while the Republican Congress watch in silence.
    I’m reminded of the yellow stars they affixed to people who were guilty of the crime of being Jewish and wonder what symbol they choose for criminal skeptics.
    http://awards.ww2badges.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/J_1.jpg

  19. Not a SINGLE theater in the state of Wyoming is scheduled to show this! What’s with the hard-to-get approach? Besides, haven’t been in a theater in years and would need CC or subtitles.

  20. anything on hurricanes in the movie?
    CAGW: More hurricanes caused by global warming
    Science: hurricanes counteracting global warming.
    The study was published online on April 20, 2016, in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences.
    http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/1-hurricaneske.jpg
    This map shows the total increase of photosynthesis and carbon uptake by forests caused by all hurricanes in 2004. The dotted gray lines represent the paths of the individual storms. Credit: Lauren Lowman, Duke University
    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-hurricanes-key-carbon-uptake-forests.html

    • Why are you convinced beforehand that it has anything significant to contribute? If you weren’t convinced of that you wouldn’t say every rational person would behave as you do.

      • Because in the movie are FORMER warmists who have realized that the AGW conjecture is waaay overblown.
        I knew from the start in 1990 that the IPCC report was not based on sound science basics as they were using climate models.that can’t be verifiable.
        If you are interested in this topic,go see it.

      • “Because in the movie are FORMER warmists who have realized that the AGW conjecture is waaay overblown.”
        Why would this convince anyone? You are still convinced in the movie before seeing it. You have seen it already?
        “I knew from the start in 1990 that the IPCC report was not based on sound science basics as they were using climate models.that can’t be verifiable.
        If you are interested in this topic,go see it.”
        You just want to see a movie that confirms the way you think (have fun watching it).

      • Because he can count. He knows the federal government chemistry scam you’re in here cheerleading for is as fake as the Pot’s like Heroin and Man Created the Ozone Hole chemistry scams.
        Chances are, he can also name the law of chemistry which is used in solving temperature in gas mechanics. We saw your surrender by refusing to return and answer a couple of simple questions about whether you can even read a thermometer at the last thread, so here again – after your KooK friend Toneb answered WRONG – for both you AND himself –
        what is the name of the law of thermodynamics written for calculating temperature in gas, in chemistry?
        What is the formula and what do the factors in it represent?
        Which factor in that equation represents the GHG effect?
        Toneb obviously can’t answer it and neither could you a week or more ago. What about today? Can you even DESCRIBE properly how to calculate the temperature of air?
        I still bet you’re too scientifically innumerate and illiterate, to answer right.
        How do I know?
        YOU believed in AGW
        You believed the basics of that science is sound.
        That’s how I know you can’t answer the simple questions that prove you’re even qualified to analyze a thermometer.

        Wagen
        May 2, 2016 at 4:50 pm
        Why are you convinced beforehand that it has anything significant to contribute? If you weren’t convinced of that you wouldn’t say every rational person would behave as you do.

      • “Why are you convinced beforehand that it has anything significant to contribute?”
        Same reason we know that you DON’T have anything significant to contribute.

      • Wagen, here is something you don’t seem to understand about this video which I saw tonight.It clearly shows the “hustling” behind the scenes in the early days that has become so openly blatant today, yet you like many warmists are oblivious to it unable to see the obvious lies and hyperbole sensationalism.
        That is why I stated that only rational people can see past the warmist/alarmist bullcrap since they are more interested in understanding what they see and hear. The movie which I know you didn’t see because you are convinced in the absurd AGW conjecture that would fry us within 84 years.
        Please take this to heart and try to see why I will NEVER change my position because I have been following the subject since the 1970’s, to know well enough that what Dr. Hansen,Dr. Mann and Al $$$ Gore represent are the hostile pushers of an idea that is insane and stupid. Their overt environmentalist/political activism and threats exposes them for what they are…… if you can figure it out…….

      • R Hargrove:
        “What is the name of the law of thermodynamics written for calculating temperature in gas, in chemistry?
        Well I’d suggest you did some basic Googling but if you are stumped on that then…
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_gas_law
        Will inform you.
        “What is the formula and what do the factors in it represent?”
        As above
        “Which factor in that equation represents the GHG effect?”
        None.
        “Toneb obviously can’t answer it and neither could you a week or more ago. What about today? Can you even DESCRIBE properly how to calculate the temperature of air?”
        Depends under what conditions my friend.
        ie what energy forcings are acting on that parcel of air and if it is diabatic or adiabatic heating.
        “I still bet you’re too scientifically innumerate and illiterate, to answer right.”
        No, I’m not – and what’s more my career in Meteorology informs me, which despite your amazement, does actually require knowledge of thermodynamics (amongst “sciency” things).
        You will find that the GHE pertaining to gases is a function of the vibratory sensitivities of bi-atomic molecules.
        You could dispel a little of your vast ignorance by reading here……
        https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
        But I suspect you wont, as you seem happy in your ignorance.
        Though may I say a tad angry and psychotic.

  21. 75 miles . . . and my son has a band concert. Hope they release it on a wider scale, or on Netflix.

  22. I’m looking forward to all the talk about it afterwards – and I’m looking forward to it being available on DVD with Australian access (whatever the code is – 4 I think).
    I really hope this film takes off. From the clips it’s a must-see – and I really want to not only see it but have it in my collection.
    Congratulations on all who put this together.

  23. Bought my tickets last night on line. I will be seeing it at 7pm, PST at:
    Century Regency
    280 Smith Ranch Road
    San Rafael, CA 94903

  24. You still haven’t shown you’ve got sense to name the law of thermodynamics for calculation of the temperature of air, D.A.R.E signts class graduate.
    When you got that sticker for answering ”because pot is like heroin” in your chemistry class, by answering the question ”why should I call the police on my parents?”
    even though they told you it was a ”school chemistry class trophy,”
    it was really, still just a D.A.R.E. sticker,
    and the other kids got one on their way out of class if they wanted one, as well.

    Wagen
    May 2, 2016 at 5:14 pm
    “Because in the movie are FORMER warmists who have realized that the AGW conjecture is waaay overblown.”
    Why would this convince anyone? You are still convinced in the movie before seeing it. You have seen it already?
    “I knew from the start in 1990 that the IPCC report was not based on sound science basics as they were using climate models.that can’t be verifiable.
    If you are interested in this topic,go see it.”
    You just want to see a movie that confirms the way you think (have fun watching it).

    It’s YOUR scientist Phil Jones who admitted faking global database records for a dozen years. “The scientific community 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.”
    It’s YOUR scientist Phil Jones who broke down and confessed to BBC in a Feb 2010 interview that – he’d been faking every tenth degree he added to a database since 1998.
    It’s YOUR scientist who told congress a magic program told him the trees were whispering the world was gonna end but that they couldn’t see the magic program because the world might not end, and he might need some money so he could sell his program that whispered the world is gonna end, for a LOT of money when the world didn’t end.
    Then he forgot his ”climate math program” that whispered the trees said the world will end online, on an FTP server, and a guy downloaded it – and SURPRISE –
    hundreds and hundreds,
    upon HUNDREDS of HOCKEY STICK graphs. From calibration data, climate clown.
    It’s YOUR scientist who told the entire world, a small handful of trees in a swamp in Norway, had revealed the temperature of the WHOLE planet about 6 – 800 or whatever hundred years ago.
    It’s YOUR scientist who told you in school that the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of gas in chemistry doesn’t work, so now scientists have to use magic to calculate the temperature of air.
    And it’s YOUR reputation that sunk to laughingstock level
    for believing all that stupid sh**.
    The real scientists are still here.
    Where are your friends who think the world is going to end? Why aren’t there more of them here defending your KooK-Sprechen?
    Because they’re too humiliated to show their thermodynamically befuddled faces, is why.
    It’s embarrassing to most adults to be slapped in the face with the evidence of chemistry scamming you show up waving as a flag the world is ending: scientists BUSTED admitting they faked ALL the warming for the last FIFTEEN YEARS.
    Men telling you that you have to be MAGIC to calculate the temperature of air.
    You deserve the laughter in your face you get. You come around begging for it because you’re too much of a ”Pot’s like Heroin” class authority worshipper to see how stupid you seem, coming here chiding the people who CAUGHT YOUR SCIENTISTS
    RUNNING a SCAM
    on
    YOU.
    LoL. What a bunch of quacks.

    • Another rant from our friend R Hargrove again.
      Just one substantive point from the psychotic spittle he/she spews….
      “It’s YOUR scientist Phil Jones who broke down and confessed to BBC in a Feb 2010 interview that – he’d been faking every tenth degree he added to a database since 1998.”
      Would he/she or anyone else care to point out where??
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

  25. Be wary outside cinemas.
    There are a lot of far-left-wing nutters out there…
    …. just waiting for the chance to try to enforce their totalitarian beliefs.

  26. Just got home from viewing it. Some digital glitch skipped over the entire last section and took us right to the discussion panel at the end, so I don’t know what the last segment was about or how the film ended.
    Very interesting, though. I liked it but felt it could have been harder hitting on the data in some cases… more than once they mentioned “when the data isn’t on your side attack the messenger”, without showing that some of the very basic data IS on our side (unless that was all in the last segment).

    • P.S. – pretty good attendance. Over 50 people. More than in some of the other regular movies.

  27. I just got home from watching it. I bought the last available seat in the house (except for a few seats on the very front row).
    Anthony, I didn’t know beforehand that you were in the movie. By the time I recognized your name on the screen, they had moved on to something else.
    I could have done without the panel discussion at the end.

  28. Just saw it, it was pretty well done, and accomplished what it wanted to. They have a part 2 in the works. Sarah Palin didn’t add much at the end, and it really wasn’t a smart choice having her on the panel. One thing to note is that some identical quotes and clips were used in the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming.
    https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o

  29. Just got back from the movie about 20 minutes ago. My wife, who has read a few of the political articles here, enjoyed it quite a bit, though she didn’t get what I was whispering about Homer Simpson when James Hansen was on. She also wasn’t quite sure who Lord Monckton was. I pointed out that every time he posts here, sock puppets come out of the woodwork to start the (almost a WUWT tradition now) “He’s not really a Lord” attempt to derail the thread. I’ll have to point her to one of his (very funny) skewerings focused on the political aspects of the CAGW non-debate.
    The Al Gore ice core temperature vs. CO2 goof should have been slowed a bit more and a laser pointer or production effect used to to hammer home the lead/lag relationship. The spaghetti graph of the models would have made a nice addition.
    It’s clear that the movie was not geared to the long-time readers here, but I believe it made quite a few excellent points regarding the alarmism as the prod to get everyone to “Act NOW!” and submit to our benevolent one-world government overlords.
    It should make CAGW fence-sitters look further into the topic

    • Your comments are right on, Anthony. And there should have been much more of you in there.
      I think the movie was very basic, and fun to watch. Climate skeptic for dummies. But, good for people who are not [yet] skeptics, if only they would watch it. They would not find it confusing.
      There was a lot of time wasted not digging into more of a solid case. But that is the case with most documentaries. There were too few skeptical scientists taking part in the film. Judith Curry was in there a lot. Would love to have seen Lindzen.
      I did not need nor enjoy the comedy, as it detracted from the seriousness of the subject matter. That is, on the one hand, people really and truly believe that skeptics are blocking a solution to an impending – but in this film, the comical aspects of it could make it appear that skeptics treat this immaturity, as if to laugh in ignorance. Maybe it works, though, to sort of laugh off the alamists.
      Morano did interview well, without coming across as stubborn or religious. He sounded very bright and well spoken. I do not think he is as good of a debater as he could be. He should have been able to put some nails in the coffin when debating Bill Nye the science guy. But most of that footage was NOT part of Climate Gate, rather it was used during the Interview after the movie.
      The interview at the end of the film, with Sarah Palin, pointed out how alarmist silence debate and dissent, so that was good. I think Palin’s very smart and has solid principles. With long run on sentences, Sarah said many correct things, but still comes off as whimsical. This will instantly turn some people off.
      The quality of images and some video captured from the Internet was of very low quality. However the rest of the film was of good quality. Towards the end, I felt good very about the messages.

  30. I just came back from seeing it in Midland, TX, home of lots of oil wells. I thought it was well done. About 150 seats were occupied. I thought the panel at the end did a good job of discussing opposite viewpoints. To me, the theme of the whole thing was correctly: “If the science isn’t on your side, attack the messenger”

  31. I liked the movie, but I was disappointed that there was no good opportunity for networking, at least at our theater.
    After the movie, they showed a mostly boring prerecorded “panel discussion,” during which much of the movie audience trickled out. Then, when the movie was over, it blared loud, obnoxious music during the credits, and the theater kept the lights out, both of which made it very difficult to talk, or even hand out business cards, and also made it impossible to solicit email addresses for a local climate interest group.

  32. 500 theaters show it one night… Each holds what..400? Do the math.
    Better get it on DVD, or Netflix or something bigger quick if it’s going to have a chance at an impact any time soon, before its own story is outdated.

  33. I saw the movie at the AMC in Owings Mills, Maryland. My friend and I were the first ones in the theater and the rest poured in at the opening. There were about 32 people in all. About half left sometime during the panel discussion. One man remarked that he was surprised to see so many reactionaries. The people were a rather subdued lot and I was thinking that maybe I should have staged a mock protest before the movie started. Oh well, at least there are drinks now. It was great to see Anthony Watts get a part; go Anthony!

  34. I saw it in Houston with about 50 people. Audience members were howling with laughter at the alarmist’s predictions. Prince Charles was particularly skewered by his own words. Lots of goalpost moving. Bob Carter had a lot of screen time, which kinda made me sad because of his recent passing. It wasn’t geared towards Anthony’s or Tony Heller’s readership, but more for general audiences. I would like to give each of my FB friends a DVD.

    • +1
      Just got back from a screening in Phoenix – well attended, in fact at the box office they claimed it was sold out and wouldn’t sell a guy a ticket but I had an extra and sold it to him. The Prince Charles sequence got some great laughs… too bad it really isn’t all that funny. That dufus is actually the crown prince of England. Sad.
      It was geared toward a general audience, IMHO, and Anthony, you were great!

    • I saw it in Houston, too. I was at the Edwards Marq’E on the Katy Fwy. It was a large theater 1 seat in 6 filled, so between 80 and 120 people.
      I thought it a good effort. Amusing if not laugh out loud funny. The “Hustle” theme was well done and the visual summary at the end was a good recap. It was good to put faces and voices to people we read about.
      Like others here I feel more attention should have been spent on the 97%. The 75 of 77 fact got attention, but what need more was the 77 were selected from an initial 10,000. A good visual of the 97% crumbling.
      Speaking of visuals, I liked the titles they used. Names of speakers and positions. The movie gave theme subtle movement which attracts the eye.
      Good use of historical alarmist footage about the Global Cooling scare of the 1970’s. Hanson’s “boiling oceans”. “Snow will be a thing of the past”.
      Almost no coverage of the 99 climate models, all running warm. If the “science is settled” why do we pay for 99 climate models? Wouldn’t one, two, or three be enough?
      The panel discussion at the end got off to a slow start and people left. The one point about the panel that should be kept and expanded is the latest move to silence and prosecute those who question and disagree with those in political power.
      All in all, worth the price of admission.

  35. I watched it tonight at the Cary, NC showing; it was pretty well attended and the crowd seemed to like it. The panel discussion at the end was boring to me and I left before that was over. The movie was pretty good; light on data but did a good job showing lots of climate scientists who are not drinking the Kool Aid.

  36. Hopefully it will be available on DVD or streaming. I haven’t been to the movies in years. My comprehension is impaired without subtitles. Hearing loss is a bummer.

  37. I watched it at one of the two theaters showing it in Colorado Springs. There were only about 35 people watching the movie. The only place I heard about the movie was on wattsupwiththat (going home, I heard it mentioned on a radio talk show), so I think if more people heard about it, more people would have showed up. I would like to get a copy of “The Climate Change Song” which played during the credits at the end of the movie. Any hints on how to do that?

  38. Saw the movie tonight. Honestly thought it was poorly done and not likely to sway anyone’s opinion. Seemed like a show from the fifties, very outdated in production technique. Also short on useful facts; no “take always” that could be used effectively against an alarmist.
    My wife thought it was boring, nothing memorable.
    Many in the theatre left early.
    Too bad, for all the hype it seems an opportunity lost.

  39. Great information, but poorly presented. Almost completely avoided mentioning one of the most important aspects of this whole disaster-in-the-making: Cui bono?

      • That was the suggestion, but if he had left out the interminable transitions, cut WAY back on his cheesy (re-) explanations, and omitted the condescending sections, he would have had more than enough time to include this topic, IMHO.

  40. I saw it in Midland, TX. I bought my ticket last week figuring that it might sell out quick. The theatre was half full (to be generous). To be fair, the bust has hit the area pretty hard and things around town are pretty dead. I did like the movie, although the Palin bit should have been left out. The 97% meme should have been a slam dunk as well but that missed the mark. Maybe get more feedback/opinion on the next movie to make sure all points are crystal clear.

    • Although I came away with a generally favorable impression of the movie, I, too, thought Morano should have dug slightly deeper on the 97% issue. Although he got a conclusory statement from Richard Tol, and although he did hit the 77-out-of-79 thing, it could have benefited from noting that even among committed skeptics at least 97% probably think the globe is warming on some timescale, so the statistic as normally presented is meaningless.

  41. I saw the film in Fort Collins, CO tonight. The theater was full. A few seats were empty, but based on how full it was I am willing to bet it was sold out and those people didn’t make it for whatever reason.
    I drove two hours each way to see it. There were no surprises in the film for me, but global warming is my hobby.
    I agree with Aarne. Even though I like Palin, I didn’t feel she had much to offer in this circumstance.

  42. Saw in Tucson, Az, Park Place Cinemas. Maybe 80 folks, about 1/3 full.
    The transitions between topics were too long with all the fast visual sliding in and out of newspaper article sets, otherwise well done. Marc needs more work on be more natural with hand gestures and less repetition of hand movements.
    Freeman Dyson would also have been a good skeptic to have had in it. Too bad he wasn’t.
    More needs to be shown on the climate records manipulations by NOAA, NASA, UKMO, but I get it that that can get into legal problems of accusing fraud without enough evidence, so lawyers don’t like the liability of that tack.

  43. Saw it in Dublin, CA- smallish theater- good turnout maybe 60+ there. Nothing “new” for WUWT regular readers. Seemed short on backup information. If I had watched it to hear the other side, , I’m not sure why I should have believed Marc over any of the warmists on many of the points. .Occasionally he made clear points stick, but in general would have liked more hard numbers. I directed several people after the show to head here at WUWT for more detailed information. Thought Curry was excellent (although she too was a bit more general than I know she is), would have liked to see more of Anthony. Loved seeing Bob Carter- I think one of his Youtube lectures would have been more effective swaying people.. I appreciate what Marc was trying to do,but it took him a long time to make his points.. AND The panel at the end was pointless- the moderator phrased his questions in the way he wanted them answered, and Palin, really??? Listening to her is like nails on a chalkboard for me- so I had to leave early. Would have liked time for networking afterwards as well. , Even in the beginning talking to neighbors would have been more interesting than the “making of the film” piece done before the show started. Not disappointed I went, but then I knew in advance, that it was going to be hard to beat the information,dialogue and interest of WUWT. Thank you Anthony!

  44. Saw it in Fairfax, VA. The theater was almost sold out, but many of the “sold” seats were empty. For me, the music was too loud, it was distracting and made it hard to follow the dialog. I was hoping to see more science. My friend (who enjoyed it) agreed that, without more facts, it was mainly just propaganda. People started leaving during the panel part – most of that should have been left out.
    The ad for the next film should have also been omitted.
    I got the impression that many of the attendees there were already skeptics. As a result, if no one changed their opinion, the film has little value.

  45. The movie seemed to be Skeptic 101 — designed for those who know little about the climate wars. Probably a lot of the audience who went to see it were quite knowledgeable and might have thought the movie somewhat lightweight — but it will introduce newcomers to many of the issues. On the whole a very worthwhile production. Considering the budget I give it 41/2 stars out of 5.
    In the panel discussion I think Sarah Palin had the worst day of her life. I like her and respect her intelligence but during that shoot she didn’t have it. Had they a slightly larger budget they would have re-shot the whole thing. I think. I have had days like that and I feel for her.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • Should add that about 25 people watched it — but this theater was in Portland, Oregon. I was surprised that there were no pickets. The movie was also shown in a theater outside Portland where the smart people live and I am sure the numbers there were better.
      Eugene WR Gallun

  46. Jimmy Kimmel had a rant tonight about how nearly all scientists know that AGW is real and that it’s utterly ridiculous that Sarah Palin was out hyping a skeptic’s movie. Then he followed that with a video blurb written and performed by real scientists (I didn’t recognize any names) that was content free and was more for shock value to get people’s attention.
    I imagine it will all be on YouTube tomorrow. Nope, it’s up now!

    They really could have left Sarah Palin out of it….

    • Scientists in the blurb – who are they and what do they do?
      Aradhna Tripati – Paleoclimatologist & Isotope Geochemist
      Alex Hall – Climate Scientist
      Jeremy Pal – Hydroclimatologist
      Nina Karnovsky – Polar Ecologist
      Chuck Taylor – Environmental Analytical Chemist
      John Dorsey – Marine Environmental Scientist
      “For more information go to: http://www.globalchange.gov

    • Funny.
      Devastating logic.
      And I suspect that will reach any more people than Mr Morano’s epic.

      • Hmmmm, getting a little child to swear for shock entertainment is your is your idea of ” devastating logic ” ?? You are a very sad P.O.S. !

    • They really could have left Sarah Palin out of it….

      I agree Sarah Palin should have been left out…but, the very fact that they avoid any of the issue from the movie and only address the after movie discussion with Sarah proves they don’t have the argument. The movie did a great job highlighting the major issues. Jimmy repeats the 97% claim many times in this video, and that claim was debunked in the movie. So were the claims about the data.

      • Richard M:
        “they measured the total IR at the same location (actually longer 1997-2011) and what did they find? A reduction in clear sky IR. Got it? A real experiment that demonstrates as the CO2 frequency IR increases, the total downwelling IR is reduced.”
        They were measuring CO2 DWIR (via spectroscopic analysis).
        You do know that H2O is strong GHG?
        And even clear-sky has it present?
        “at the same location”???
        The experiment was conducted at 2 locations. the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska
        Actually you may have confused it with this….
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
        And I’m guessing you went no further than….
        “The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant …”
        Whereas it further adds…
        “…and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. ”
        It also adds…
        “Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.”
        Radiative theory says that total downwelling IR is due to the combined effect of the various GHGs. H2O is the most prevalent. In this case, its reduction exceeded the effect of CO2 increase.
        See Fig 11.12 in AR4 ….
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-5-3-2.html
        Less precipitation for OK. Which probably means less clouds and humidity, as the paper observes.
        “Yup, that is the experiment that demonstrates 1) the greenhouse effect is real and 2) the feedback is negative. You knew that right? ”
        Yup that experiment demonstrates that.
        1) Correct.
        2) Feed-back cannot be inferred. There is a trend in LWIR reduction that the authors attribute to drier air.
        You knew that right?

      • Toneb, cherry picking quotes shows you know you are being dishonest. Here is the money quote:
        “The most distinct result from these plots is that clear-sky scenes are getting colder (i.e., less downwelling radiance) for all seasons and spectral regions (Fig. 7). ”
        Now, don’t you feel foolish?

    • The Consequences Could Be Catastrophic

      What will be a 100% certainty of a catastrophie will be the redistribution of wealth and world government that will result from all this nonsense. NASA, the media, education and Science will have their credibility destroyed.
      Science is done through experimentation, not polling, and there are no valid experiments done to support the AGW theory. ToneB provided all the evidence one needs to prove this is a fraud. He produced the most ridiculous experiment I’ve ever seen as evidence CO2 is causing warming. Note the date on the article he provided. The settled science did their first experiment in 2015. Any two year old could find the problems in this “experiment.” NASA is no longer flying a shuttle, they are spending their budget readjusting data and running nonsensical experiments to promote a political agenda of the left.
      First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect
      February 25, 2015
      http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

      • Co2islife:
        “Note the date on the article he provided. The settled science did their first experiment in 2015. Any two year old could find the problems in this “experiment.” NASA is no longer flying a shuttle, they are spending their budget readjusting data and running nonsensical experiments to promote a political agenda of the left.
        First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect
        February 25, 2015
        http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
        Actually they started the experiment 15 years prior……
        “The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010.
        And no doubt the instrumentation/funding was not availabale any earlier.
        So even though they published last year it’s not valid because they should have done it earlier.
        Now that is desperate even for you.
        And what did it do – it validated the science that has been built on for ~150 years.
        That part is settled my friend.
        The bit that isn’t, is the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
        Oh, and to state “Any two year old could find the problems in this “experiment.””,
        says far more of you than the science or even of 2 year old’s.
        Rabid and desperate hand-waving anti-science.
        Because of my “tax-dollars” no doubt (read ideological leaning).
        Ah diddums.

      • Yup, that is the experiment that demonstrates 1) the greenhouse effect is real and 2) the feedback is negative. You knew that right? At the same time as they checked the CO2 IR changes, they measured the total IR at the same location (actually longer 1997-2011) and what did they find? A reduction in clear sky IR. Got it? A real experiment that demonstrates as the CO2 frequency IR increases, the total downwelling IR is reduced.

  47. I saw the domumentary in Kennesaw, Georgia at the AMC 24. Monday nights are not a good night for the movie business, and the theater for Climate Hustle had less that a hundred viewers. Kennesaw is in an historically conservative part of town, and I was expecting more attendees. In the Atlanta area there were a couple of other venues showing the movie.
    It seemed that grey heads like me dominated the audience. I was surprised that I saw a few of what seemed like millennials in attendance.
    The documentary was well done, and Marc Morano is an excellent host. It does not take a technical person to watch it, and that is a great strength of the movie. It would be better if Morano could secure some television showings.

    • I agree. Sarah Palin a bad idea. Talked to people as they were leaving that part along with me. All left because of Sarah Palin, and I live in a red state. Theatre almost full.
      If Mark Marano is reading this: it’s a rule that you never end a speech or a presentation with a Q&A. Doing so leaves people with questions and becomes the thing your audience remembers. Either step in at the end to bring it around to the point you make at the beginning–recap the speech or presentation point–or eliminate it.
      If you put this out for general distribution, ditch the panel. It waters it down.

      • I agree. At the theater I attended last night, there was clapping at the end of the movie. Then the panel came on, and Brent Bozell spoke…then Palin started to speak, and she rambled, as if she was searching for something coherent to say about the topic. People began to leave, because it was clear she had nothing useful to say.
        I left too.

      • Palin was definitely the weakest part of the whole movie; inarticulate and unfocused. The discussion panel was a poor choice for an ending. The movie was OK overall, but won’t be changing anyone’s beliefs about the issue. Morano does better in one on one debates on TV.

      • Yeah, I’d have stayed except for Sarah Palin. She seemed tired, unfocused, flat, hemming and hawing. We should already know by now she can’t think on her feet when she’s tired. Judith Curry, on the other hand, was great.
        I drove 15 minutes from home, mostly to see how many showed up. The theatre was nearly full, except for the front rows and the last row.
        I’d give it ★★★★★★★☆☆☆. If they trimmed the interminable sequence introductions, went a little deeper on the 97%, and made it clearer when the Lysenkoists were speaking, maybe one more star. I’m assuming the panel discussion is already on the cutting room floor. The sound needed help, too.

  48. We watched it tonight in Redmond, WA. Home to Mircosoft. Our theater was almost full, ~200, mostly older folks. We laughed inthe right places and clapped at the end.
    Expected outside protests but none showed up.

  49. Sold out! It was originally scheduled for a smaller theater, and it was moved to accommodate the demand. It will be interesting to see how thoroughly the news media ignores the event.
    But I was disappointed, probably because I’d already seen most of the clips used. Where was Dr. John Holdren talking about waviness and Global Warming causing more of this pattern of extreme cold? Speaking of patterns, the pattern of altering the Argo float data, the sea level data, the RSS data, the GISS data, the sea surface data and the “Hide the Decline” You Tube featuring Dr. Michael Mann was missing. They did show the “Ten Ten No Pressure” exploding school children You Tube, but really didn’t explain what it was.
    About half the audience walked out of the panel discussion at the end. I stuck it out, but Sarah Palin was definitely out of her comfort zone.

  50. Like many, I left a couple minutes into the panel discussion, and I agree with most of the constructive criticisms above. And, yes, the audience was mostly us old guys (and a few old gals); no doubt the movie was largely preaching to the converted.
    But there was one particularly strong element, which I think would have been compelling even to non-skeptics: first-person accounts from scientists–including several left-of-center ones–who started out as alarmists but converted when they actually looked at the data. And the ostracism that resulted from their speaking out.
    Among other things, those accounts highlight an important point, which few who don’t have experience with scientists find it easy to believe: even among scientists, most are just regurgitating what they’ve heard rather than stating what they’ve verified for themselves; on many scientific topics their opinions are little better than those of whoever’s sitting on the next bar stool.
    Those points need to be hammered home endlessly.

    • I, too, noticed at least two references to the Doran/Zimmerman ~75/77. These figures were good for showing that the results are based on a small sample. But I’m puzzled that they didn’t mention the 10,256 originally polled. That would have have shown, not only that the final sample was small, but that it had been dramatically cherry-picked.

  51. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Mythbusters. It seemed to take 20 minutes to cover what could be done more thoroughly in 2 minutes. By the time Mark got around to making a point the audience had lost interest.

  52. Will there be a DVD release for this documentary ? I’m in Ireland and would loved to have seen this.

  53. Andrew’s Climate Hustle Review:
    The theater was full. I bought my and my nephew’s tickets at $14.00 a piece. The seats were those reclining luxury chairs where you have room to stretch out your legs. I like that. 😉
    I’ll give the movie itself 3 out of 5 stars. There were a couple of dumb moments in it, but that was not unexpected. I would have made the movie differently, the problem there is so much climate related BS to sift through, it’s hard to know where to begin. It tried to do some humor that just missed. No biggie.
    The strength of the movie is that it simply catches prominent Warmers (scientists, politicians, enviros, tv anchors) saying really stupid stuff. There’s plenty of that to go around as we all know, and the movie did a good job highlighting some of it.
    The weakness of the movie (IMO) was that it didn’t get into the deeper scientific issues at all, but of course not many people would sit through stuff like that. That’s the climate nerd in me wanting someone to explore all the holes in climate science and expose them.
    I was surprised at how much Dr. Curry was in it. Anthony Watts only appeared for a few seconds. Richard Tol had a couple of nice bits, except for the hair.
    I would recommend the movie to anyone who is interested the Global Warming discussion, simply because it presents relevant information about what’s being/been presented about climate you don’t get from typical media.
    (I left during the panel discussion too)
    Andrew

  54. I bought tickets and the theater was packed but the cinimark could not sync the movie to the projector.
    We did not get to see the film.

  55. It was a good movie with a good sized attendance. Someone had to get the movie to project on the screen correctly when the audio was already playing but it did work out. It had a lot of old news footage I had not seen before and I always enjoy Judith Curry and Lord Monkton. There was no Sarah Palin in it except for a separate panel segment after the movie that I skipped. I was encouraged to see more installments are coming after this one. I would suggest stepping up the content to WUWT caliber. There were at least two good charts in the movie but the lag time in movie production versus online is significant. Basically the movie made me appreciate WUWT even more.

  56. Couldn’t get my girlfriend to see it with me (and it was only five minutes from her house!).
    Overall it was a bit of a disappointment, rehash of things I already knew and I was hoping for more. Such as just how much money has Al Gore made from this con?
    Why is the point that the CO2 concentrations closer to ‘plant death from CO2 starvation’ than any historic high not made?

  57. I missed the one day showing.
    The above comments indicate to me that the strategy of the movie’s makers was to stimulate some dialog in the general culture. Seems to have had some success.
    John

    • this is the first time I made a comment and got a screen name….nice delete moderator, will be the last time I try and contribute here

  58. Maybe 50 in attendance, 250(?) seat auditorium.
    My personal rule is I never recommend anything I don’t have control over. Unfortunately I broke this rule and told friends and family about the movie thinking to generate support (No One I talked to had even heard of it) . But after watching the movie… I hope nobody actually went on my suggestion. That is, besides my college age (English major) daughter who I unfortunately brought with me. Her take-away was the pointlessly silly production and bad writing in a laugh-out-loud sort of way. For folks who have only the cultural sense on climate this was a missed teaching opportunity. Even worse this movie has poisoned the water for any future move on the “hustle” that might actually be decent.
    I know I’m too far down in the comments for anyone to read this but it is cathartic.

    • Agree. I am stunned at how counter productive this was and nobody told Mark it was not ready for prime time. It was bad!

      • The best laugh in the theater was from the quote from Michigan Senator Stabenow saying air turbulence on her flight was caused by climate change. That statement also best exemplifies the staged party line on climate change and Debbie was just doing her little contribution to the party. Pathetic but instructive.

  59. I forgot, the sad-silliest part of the movie was of Prince Charles. No wonder the nation is focused on the grandchildren at this point.

    • When Prince Charlie spoke, I felt a strong urge to cry out, “Long live the Queen!” Pathetic.

  60. When I went in San Rafael, in the middle of liberal land of Marin County, I was not sure what to expect. I looked back during the show and saw about 60 to 70 people. The small theatre room looked about 50% full.

      • Hey DB… It’s good to hear from you. My synopsis is in this post. I hope it reaches some people. I was really disapointed that WUWT was not more mentioned… and it gave a small clip of our fearless leader, Mr. W A T T S.

      • Hi, Mario, I read your synopsis above. It was one of the most helpful and insightful. Thank you for taking the time…

  61. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your impressions of the movie. Going to a movie is just not possible for me, these days, so I’m really glad to know that it would be a good one to rent (someday) to show to climate-ignorant friends/acquaintances. From the comments above, it sounds kinda cheesy, but, at least it would be a way to start a conversation… hopefully.
    Public education is the to freedom!
    ***

Comments are closed.