The Climate Hustle Movie Packs ‘em in

Will the Turnbull “Liberal” government in Australia , i.e. Conservative, tell the left wing government owned broadcaster, the ABC, to screen it ?
Michael.Elliott.

Marc did what had to be done. Unfortunately, the very audience that should be exposed to this film are precisely the people who will refuse to watch it…. or go, “Yeah, well…. Sarah Palin. What can I say? Anyone up for pizza?”

I’m just SHOCKED I tell you SHOCKED…that our JohnMacdonell hasn’t been in here all day discussing the horrible reviews (that don’t exist anywhere online) from the open minded, fair, AGW supporters who had the integrity to watch the film and take careful notes about its contents to review with others. It’s almost like there was so much fear, and loathing, and shame connected to actually viewing the movie, that if ANY of the AGW supporters DID see it, they are terrified to mention it to anyone at all. Or maybe there actually wasn’t even ONE AGW supporter with an audience to report to, that actually WENT to see it!
How odd. When Al Gore released HIS version of the climate issue, LOTS of skeptics openly and eagerly went to see it. And openly and eagerly tore it to pieces with logical, factual evidence to support their arguments. You know…skeptics….who want to see everything for themselves, form their own opinions, and refuse to rely on other people’s words or opinions when seeking the truth. But where oh where are all of the AGWer’s with open minds and unbiased stances who should have been viewing this movie for themselves, so they would then be able to address it’s contents with other people in an unbiased and factual manner?
Not one word today, other than Jimmy Kimmel’s ignorant, offensive, and completely brainwashed rant last night??? The silence is golden me thinks.

Any hope of getting this out on youtube? I think that’s the only venue likely to make a difference. I imagine you’d get millions of views.

When will it be released world wide?
I want to see it screened in my city and I will buy the first ticket!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

When can we see it in Oz?

Ditch the panel discussion if you have a general release.
(1) Everyone is tired and fed up with Sarah Palin. She’s a caricature of herself and has no scientific bonafides to speak of. Why did you pick her? It reflects on you.
(2) The golden rule in PR and presentations (including speech-writing) is never end your presentation with a Q&A. Academics and inexperienced business professionals make this mistake all the time. Your audience leaves with questions in its mind, not why you gave the talk in the first place.
The speaker has to regain control of the room [in this case, your film] and restate what he or she wants the audience to take home: the point of coming and the benefits to the audience members. But Morano had already done that at the end of the film. You should have left it there.
=========================================
I stood outside the theatre (I too left during the middle of the panel) and asked leaving attendees what they thought about the movie. Everyone mentioned Sarah Palin, how unnecessary/pointless/tiring she was. That was the takeaway? That’s not what you want.

Whilst I appreciate the commercial realities and the desirability that costs need to be recouped, in this ‘war’ information needs to be free and put out in to the mass market. The film needs to be free online within a year, if it is to have an impact upon people who are not already sceptics.
There is no point in preaching to the crowds. One needs to win over the minds of those who believe in AGW just because they think that saving the planet is the morally right thing to do, and have not really explored the issues at al,l and have just been led by the brainwashing ideas promoted by the liberal/lefties. Sorry to get to politics, but at its heart cAGW is a political issue, not a scientific issue and that is why there is no debate even on the most basic of fundamentals, namely how much CO2 would be best for life on planet Earth, what temperature would be ideal for life on planet Earth, is planet Earth already too cool, which regions would benefit from an increase in temperature etc.

The Christian Science Monitor did a hit piece on the film without having seen it.
In the article they claimed that “Although 97 percent of scientists published in peer-reviewed scientific journals say that climate change is real and caused by human activities, Morano is a member of the small community of those who dispute this claim.” Of course, we know that the true number is 0.3%.
They cited a recent Gallop poll which found that 65% of Americans are on board with climate change hustle, while only 10% aren’t, so I guess that’s supposed to make skeptics feel isolated and marginalized? No word on how many respondents were social justice warriors.
CSM also claimed that climate change is “a real, imminent threat”. Nice impartiality there.
And they linked a climate change quiz at the top of the article titled “Is your opinion informed by science”. Not surprisingly the quiz is BS. It includes a question about which 18th century scientist first wrote about the greenhouse effect, which is a history question and may have been thrown in to lower scores and so make readers question their knowledge of the science.
Much of the quiz is just a regurgitation of false claims about climate change, and some questions are simply invalid. For example, “What causes ocean acidification?”. The correct answer is “Nothing because the oceans are a base, and it’s chemically impossible for them to become acidic. But that answer wasn’t available.
So they made it impossible for a well informed person to score high on the quiz, unless you answer how you know they want you to, by repeating the false propaganda.
Oh, they also threw in a reference to “funding from Koch Industries and other fossil fuel sponsors,” which is the alarmist’s hat trick.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0502/Climate-Hustle-mocks-climate-change-concerns-with-a-movie
Now I could take a cheap here shot at the founder of the CSM, Mary Baker Eddy (who many people have said was a false prophet, heretic and cult leader), but I won’t.

I saw the movie and thought it could have been done much better. Two examples are that the origin of the supposed 97% consensus was never properly explained other than it was only 76 people and the sea level rise was never put into proper geologic historical perspective (after rapid rise since the last ice age, we are in the plateau before it rapidly drops again).
I think John Coleman was great, but they used the same half dozen scientists over and over. Surely there were more than those few who were willing to be interviewed. Anthony Watts appeared only once for 5 to 10 seconds. There was never an mention of the surface stations and how that accounts for perceived warming nor do I remember anything being said about historical adjustments to make the present appear warmer.
I felt that there were a lot of poorly explained and dangling or unanswered questions and I don’t think it attracted the right audience. In the Port Charlotte Florida Regal cinema 16 plex theater, their largest venue had 40 people at the most (less than 20% full) and the average age of the audience was probably 65 (the two young people seemed to be with their parents). Their was never any applause and only a smattering of laughs happened throughout the movie.
As far as the panel discussion, no one left until the credits ran, IMHO the movie would have been better without it. That extra time should have been spent expanding the narrative. I did not learn anything that I did not already know.

Climate Hustle gets a C+ grade from me. I recommend it to any who are open-minded enough to consider new information and points of view. For those of us who closely follow climate science and the climate wars, it is a review of what we already know and mostly preaching to the choir. For others, whose knowledge is mostly the main stream media, the exposure to scientists and statisticians who reject or criticize the “consensus” is an eye-opener. So is much of the data presented.
I personally find the time devoted to the card hustle and to the montages between episodes was excessive, and the time devoted to substance, such as explaining scientific method, that a model is an hypothesis, and that the “97%” of the Doran-Zimmerman consensus claim was based on these two questions-
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”
which has no bearing on whether global warming or climate change is considered to be catastrophic, benign, or possibly beneficial.
I think most of the short interviews were good, but too short, and especially the ones (or information about) political moderates or liberals who have changed their minds because of the facts. As a helpful tactic, I’d emphasize even more the retired scientists who can only challenge the group think after retirement. The intimidation and group think needs more exposure and explanation. I wish Judith Curry would have had more time to explain that or that Freeman Dyson and James Lovelock had been interviewed.
I mentioned in a post above that although Sarah Palin surprised me by making relevant comments, she was a poor choice because of her deserved or undeserved reputation. Similarly, I think the comments about a left wing conspiracy to promote one world government with the global warming “trojan horse” is mostly mistaken. It is true of some of the environmentalists and some flaming liberals, but the consensus and fear of CAGW is surely much more “religion” than conspiracy. The conspiracy claim not only doesn’t ring true for any of my center left friends and acquaintances, but is offensive and a turn-off- so another tactical error by the film makers in my opinion.
I thank Marc Morano and the many others who have tried to address the exaggerations, the disinformation, and especially the resulting group think and climate McCarthyism. Unfortunately, fewer than 20 were at the Greenville, SC, showing. I’m glad it was sold out in some other locations. I think the film or its successor needs revision, including more substance, more data, and an emphasis on the difficulties of scientific method and the resulting uncertainties. In other words, I think it should be more educational. As a center left sort of guy, but a teacher of a global warming/climate change science class, I’m very sensitive to both the left wing and the right wing group think narratives. Both, in my opinion, undermine the science of climate science and what, if any, mitigation and adaptation policies should be considered.
Our WUWT reader takeaways from the film are less important than the target audience (I assume) of those who have had much less exposure to the differing points of view. I would be very interested in those reviews which I hope some here will post from other web sites, newspapers, etc.

“A” for effort and intent. “C” otherwise. There’s still a better movie to be made on this subject. Keep trying, the truth of this fraud should produce a blockbuster!

RE: Kimmel – Hanlon’s Razor applies: “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. He is an entertainer, and has never been exposed to critical thinking.