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 fa
cts 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/
Will it be on Netflix or DVD? I am not driving 4 hours just to see a movie.
Would like to see it, but can’t do so on this one date and time.
Why is it only showing for one night?
I am going there tonight as every rational person interested in this topic should.
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.
“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.
75 miles . . . and my son has a band concert. Hope they release it on a wider scale, or on Netflix.
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.
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
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.
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
No I thought not.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sold out in Milwaukee.
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.
Great information, but poorly presented. Almost completely avoided mentioning one of the most important aspects of this whole disaster-in-the-making: Cui bono?
If I understood him correctly, Morano seemed to be saying that would be covered in a subsequent movie.
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.
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.