The Climate Hustle Movie Packs ‘em in

Craig Rucker of CFACT writes:

Thank you to everyone who went to the movies Monday night and saw Climate Hustle.

Together, we had a huge success. We have only anecdotal evidence of the movie’s strength so far, but what anecdotes!

Friends from across the nation report strong attendance. There were sellouts or near sellouts in Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, Toronto, Long Island and many more.  A Boy Scout Troop made a movie night of it in St. Augustine, Florida.  Another group got together before the film in Minnesota for dinner and discussion.

I saw it in Virginia and we sold out there with around 180 people in attendance. The crowd’s eyes were glued to the screen.  The audience reaction was very positive. Folks laughed out loud and applauded at all the places we hoped they would.  We had loud applause at the end.

People engaged more than any movie I’ve recently seen.  They hung around and chatted in the lobby.  People were not anxious to head home, they wanted to discuss the film and process what they had learned.  They were loaded with the right questions and eager to learn more.

Last night thousands of people left the theater Informed, open-minded, engaged questioners. That’s going to give the warming crowd hives. Late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel launched a lengthy diatribe against the film on Jimmy Kimmel Live.  Kimmel recited the same tired global warming talking points the film so effectively debunks and did a fine job of illustrating our point.

Marc Morano, the host of Climate Hustle, shot back:

“It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made. Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.”

“Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pablum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.”

Jimmy Kimmel is either hustling us, or he has been hustled himself. Either way, thousands of people left the theater last night armed with the facts they need to see through the kind of nonsense Kimmel was spouting.

That’s a good night’s work all around.

Thank you to everyone who made Monday night such a success.  Great things lie ahead.  Stay tuned.

187 thoughts on “The Climate Hustle Movie Packs ‘em in

  1. I’ll be interested to see the actual numbers.
    Here’s hoping CFACT’s estimate is correct.

  2. CFACT and Marc Morano are to congratulated on Climate Hustle. The documentary was informative and entertaining at the same time. It’s a great job.
    However, the panel after the movie, I thought, was not a winner at all. Sara Palin headlined the panel and I tired of her performance and left the theater before she finished.

  3. I absolutely loved the Climate Hustle Debut! Problem is, I bragged about it, and now my twitter followers, facebook friends, relatives, and acquaintances, all want to know when they will be able to see it. Sure hope it is available soon! 🙂

  4. True, Jimmy Kimmel basically repeated every talking point debunked in the movie. The 97%, Polar Bears, hottest year ever, melting ice. Every “scientist” in that video should be ashamed and having the kid swear at the end is horrible.

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

    • Well, we can count on the counterpart of the ABC in Canada, the government financed CBC ($1.1 billion a year of taxpayers’ money), will never run such “Denialist” programming. They prefer the nonsense spouted by his highness Dr. David Suzuki, Canada’s leading expert (Sarc) on climate science. He is the geneticist by trade who appointed himself to the rank of “Expert” on climate science. He flies to Australia, by his own admission, once or twice a year, “just for fun”. So much for HIS “Carbon Footprint”. Suzuki was made a fool of by Australian scientists, on camera, when he travelled there a few years ago. I was embarrassed to be a Canadian that day, but then realized Australians were smart enough to realize that not all Canadians were so foolish.

      • Stunned old CBC won’t even mention that such a movie exists. It becomes easier to understand how mass mind control like the Spanish Inquisition can happen.

      • @nc Bob McDonald is a journalist, not a scientist. In a recent interview he said he appears to know a lot of stuff about science because of all the years he spent interviewing real scientists. Though somehow he hasn’t been able to interview a real climate scientist yet.

    • It wouldn’t matter. I gave up watching the ABC years ago because of their blatant political and pseudo-scientific bias.

  6. I saw “Climate Hustle” in Tulsa, OK. I got there 30 minutes before show time and was shocked to find there were only five seats left to be sold out of the whole theater. I would call that a sell-out, or near as dammit.

  7. 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?”

    • Yeah, the panel discussion created a mass exodus. Future releases of “Climate Hustle” might benefit from removal of that coda. However panel member David Russell Legates did have some cogent remarks.

      • Compare the treatment of Sarah Palin with the treatment of Geraldine Ferraro who ran as V.P. in the 1984 election with Walter Mondale. She was from Queens, NYC and a Congresswoman.
        Also reported to be a small “c” conservative.

  8. The Ridge Cinema in the Milwaukee area originally scheduled “Climate Hustle” to play in one of their smaller theaters. They moved it to a larger venue and it was still sold out.

  9. 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.

    • I note that the few CAGW fans who have commented on it (Kimmel, Christian Science Monitor) haven’t actually seen the movie. It makes it hard to take their ‘shredding’ seriously, but the confirmation bias seems to be in deep play here and only proper scientists will actually note these people have not seen the documentary…

    • Interesting observations. Which also add up to a very good argument for making such a film and screening it in this way.

  10. I attended in Greenville SC. There were only about twenty people in the audience.

    • I attended in Charlotte, NC. South Charlotte. Around 90 to 100 in the audience.
      A lot of retired folks. Was disappointed in the movie. Wasn’t that great. Just ok.
      Walked out as soon as Sara Palin opened her mouth.

      • HA, typical lefty liberal response, ……. citing Sarah Palin as their excuse for “walking out” …… thus intentionally averting their eyes, ears and mind to the literal facts and evidence that are directly contrary to their funded intere$t$ ….. and/or ….. their brainwashed “greeny anti-carbon” religious beliefs.

      • I expected to be turned off by Sarah Palin, but was surprised that she actually made some relevant comments. However, I think it was a tactical mistake to include her if the intended audience was independents and center left people like myself who remember some of her ignorant comments in past years.

      • The vast majority of the so called ignorant statements were never made by Palin in the first place.

      • Samuel C Cogar: “HA, typical lefty liberal response”…. why bring politics into it? 1) I’m not a Democrat, but find listening to Palin is “painful”. (Worse than nails on a chalkboard for me) in general, she speaks in such a flighty, disorganized manner that even if I have followed her logic by the end of the sentence (Difficult!), I leave with so what? . I rarely find she adds anything substantive to the conversation. What did she say that you found enlightening? Please give me specifics! I was disappointed, because I’m trying to convince my liberal friends to pay attention- if the typical liberal response is walk out when she comes on, why did Marc include her if the goal was to get people to listen? I hung on as long to the panel as I possibly could, but without knowing whether I had another 5, 10 or 30 minutes I left too. I listened long enough to realize the panel was pointless, Marc is well spoken, but this moderator asked questions framed in a very misleading way, and nothing that I heard added anything to the movie…. it was just repetitive and boring.

      • Not a lefty or a liberal.
        Big fan of Climate Depot and Marc Morano. Not a big fan of Sarah Palin. I would have liked to have seen Tony Heller on the panel.

      • Louise Nicholas asks of me:

        What did she (Sarah Palin) say that you found enlightening? Please give me specifics!

        Louise, I don’t have a clue as to what Sarah Palin said or stated as a contributor of the content/context of the Climate Hustle movie simply because I have never seen or viewed any part of it, …… and far worse yet, ….. not one of the “posters” guilty of “badmouthing” Sarah Palin herein, … including yourself Louise N, …. has bothered to tell anyone what exactly it was that they themselves found un-enlightening, false or junk sciencey with the content/context of Palin’s commentary.
        And Louise Nicholas, please don’t be blaming Sarah Palin for your self-admitted ADD.

      • First, I’m not offended by Palin’s politics or what she wrote in her books.
        But Palin’s speaking skills on TV, with no Teleprompter — oye vey —- her odd cadence — poor modulation — sort of a ‘sing song’ voice — and the needlessly wordy answers always sound to me like a lot of “filler” words keep flowing from her mouth while she is thinking of what she really wants to say … I wish she would stop and think about what she wants to say for five seconds, and then answer concisely.
        She acts as if she thinks that if she ever stopped talking for more than two seconds, someone would grab her microphone and send her home.
        I think the “ultimate debate” would be between Blabbering Palin, Shrill Hillary and Loudmouth Donald T.
        My wife can tolerate Palin for less than a minute.
        I can last a few minutes — way longer than listening to Shrillary.
        We are NOT liberals — we just want Palin to stick to writing books.
        The remote control “MUTE” button was invented for talkers like Palin.

  11. 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.

  12. Good crowd in Napa last night. Applause at the end not characteristic of your basic movie.
    Everyone who survives in business for any time develops a sense of when they are being hustled. Everyone who has lived through “Jesus freaks”, communes, Moonies, and missionaries at your front door develops a sense of when they are being proselytized.
    For me, the climate agenda has always felt far more the latter.
    Historians have often described the period before WWI with a sense that human civilization was pregnant with war. It was somewhat different in that the driving emotion seemed the emergence of nationalism. The result was a human Cuisinart of mechanized war.
    This slight deviation from the usual MO of religious war may or not be significant.
    The frightening concern is that humans are not inherently rational. We are not inherently scientific. These luxuries only emerge in privileged classes when good times permit.

  13. Went to the Digiplex 12 in Lisbon CT. (rural area, but in a Mall that houses Home Depot with another Mall on opposite side of road that houses Lowes). My showing had 253 available seats with 14 people in attendance.
    For the 12 movie showings, the parking lot was lucky to have 50 vehicles.

    • Well, lets see…12 theaters… 50 cars…some of the cars must belong to the people that work there, say 10 cars for work force so 40 cars for 80 people…that is an average of about 7 people per theater, if you had 14 people, your movie boasted twice the attendance of the average viewing for all the other theaters.

  14. Well, so much for the alleged skeptical demographic of old white middle class men…
    Boy Scouts,
    Quite a few women,
    Multiple nationalities,
    Young and old.
    Well done Climate Hustle!

  15. [snip – personal attack, policy violation, obviously never watched the movie -mod]
    [Reply: this commenter’s post have all been scurrilous personal attacks, all the time. If that continues he will be invited to post elsewhere. ~another mod]

  16. I hope Climate Hustle will be a start to the unravelling of decades of disinformation spread by the MSM media, politicians. eco-fascists and ludicrous “documentaries” like Al Gore’s inconvenient truth. Climate Hustle must be made available to a wider audience.

  17. And our good friend Lord Monckton was on one of the other alternate news sites saying he has a pre-release paper from professor Ray Bates where the CO2 multiplier is destructed totally. This is going to be a very bad month for the warmunists.

    • Just a know-nothing, big-mouthed, late-night “comedian” blab-show host.
      In short, nobody.

    • Kimmel used to be Ben Stein’s sidekick when he give away money on Comedy Central. Ben Stein is the respectable economist best known as the teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, who droned the attendance roll call with ‘Bueller, Bueller…’

  18. I’m another voice asking for a DVD release. I guess it would need to be multi-region as, in the UK, we can only watch Region 2 or 0.
    I’m sure they could work out the financial risks (if any) were they to offer it for pre-order.

      • She is a fool? If she were President she would approved the Keystone pipeline, lower taxes, lower Gov spending, cut regs and cut welfare. In essence she would be ten times better than Obummer…you know him? The guy who gave 150 billion to the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism. PS…my movie review…I saw the movie in Fargo, ND. Only about 40 attendees. The highlight of the night was when some shrill lib stood up and demanded to know “who funded this movie”!!! LOL… Really??!!…it cost a piddly 500K

    • Thanks for the link and advice. I couldn’t make it thru the whole thing. Kimmel wasn’t funny or accurate.
      It’s sucks that Sarah Palin isn’t informed about the debunked 97% consensus claim. Very few scientists support the catastrophic anthropogenic Climate Change hype.

  19. 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.

    • You probably missed the part where the interviewer mentioned that Palin was there specifically to present a political commentary, the climate scientist (sorry, name escapes me at the moment) was there to present scientific commentary, and Morano was there for media commentary. The first and last of those three were there for purposes other than the science. Scientific bonafides don’t matter.
      I agree, however, that she came off poorly, without much in the way of insightful commentary. There was one comment of hers I liked, that was on point; the rest was too rambling.
      She was also a poor choice for the ‘optics’, as they say these days.

  20. My heart dropped when I heard Sarah Palin was involved. Even if you think she’s wonderful (for some strange reason) you must see she has an image problem with exactly the sort of people who might just be convinced by the sceptical argument if they actually heard it. Why play into the Warmists’ hands? It’s obvious they’re going to bring her name up every time the movie is mentioned. Mystifying misjudgement.

    • As someone once said. (Napoleon Bonaparte)
      “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake”

      • “Toneb
        No-one is interrupting you”
        So it’s not a mistake to have Palin in the film?
        It is obvious from the comments that it was.
        Mistake.
        So pro-science will not interrupt.
        BTW: I vote Conservative and will vote for Brexit.
        The trouble with you folks is you conflate science into politics … It’s not.

    • Palin seems like a nice lady, but she was a poor choice for this issue. And now is certainly not the time to associate with Republican establishment types.

    • My heart dropped when I heard Sarah Palin was involved. Even if you think she’s wonderful (for some strange reason) you must see she has an image problem with exactly the sort of people who might just be convinced by the sceptical argument if they actually heard it.

      HA, a clear cut case of admitted Sexual Harassment ….. which is prosecutable via the current statutes.
      And proof-positive that sexual harassment claims have nothing whatsoever to do with …. “what was said” …….. but EVERYTHING to do with ……. “who said it”.
      Brainwashed individuals want to know who the author is before they make judgment on the context/content of the author’s verbiage.
      Well nurtured honest truthful individuals want to know what the context/content of the author’s verbiage is before they make judgment on the educational expertise of the author.
      To “pre judge” an entity is the root source of the word “prejudice”.

      • Samuel C Cogar. Could you explain why you think that is sexual harrasment?
        Even if you were correct, how would this be proof that all sexual harrasment claims had nothing whatsoever to do with what was said?

      • Seaice1, it’s not a matter of “thinking”, it’s a matter of common sense reasoning.
        Most all “lovers” talk dirty to each other …… and they both love doing it …… and neither one will accuse the other of Sexual Harassment.
        But let another person, ….. that one or both of the above noted ones really dislikes or hates for whatever reason …… voice the exact same verbiage to “talk dirty” to them and they will fer shur accuse that person of/with Sexual Harassment.
        Seaice1, instead of Sarah Palin, ….. what if Hillary Clinton had been featured in the “Climate Hustle” movie voicing the exact same verbiage, ….. would the same posters have “badmouthed” Hillary Clinton the same as they “badmouthed” Sarah Palin?
        “Hell no they wouldn’t have” ….. and you know damn well that is a fact.

    • Toneb
      Palin is a popular figure in some circles. I think she’s a loon. Maybe her appearance is a good thing or a bad thing. She’s at the end of things in this movie. I tend to ‘turn off’ at the end of most movies anyway because directors don’t have a clue sometimes.
      Maybe not such a mistake.
      Politics/science:
      Why did you bother mentioning your political beliefs?
      If I were to pigeon-hole myself then I would call myself an anarchist.
      There are more than enough lamposts for ALL the politicians of the world

      • The real problem is that she’s a turn-off for exactly the sort of moderate, fair-minded, but perhaps left-leaning people who this movie is aiming at. The Warmists are quite unscrupulous and will use Palin as a stick to beat it with – and people will listen to that because they associate Palin with frothing-mouth, stupid conservatism.

  21. If you want to make a bigger impact, make ‘Climate Hustle’ available to high schools.

    • “If you want to make a bigger impact, make ‘Climate Hustle’ available to high schools.”
      Be careful. You might end up with a court examining the scientific claims as they did with “An Inconvenient Truth” I do not think the producers of the film would want to go anywhere near that one.

      • I see that seaice is still smarting over the many errors found in his idol’s flick.
        BTW, why don’t you list the errors in “Climate Hustle”, if you can.

  22. 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.

    • 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 money has to come from somewhere. For sure, the alarmists are going to dig into how the movie was financed. It’s better if the movie pays for itself.

    • Yeah, that would be great. C’mon guys – get off your backsides and send it across the pond. In fact send it out right across the world.

  23. The makers of Climate Hustle should get in touch with the UKs Channel 4. They are an uber right-on liberal channel, just like the BBC, and yet they have a long history of pushing the boundaries and broadcasting scoops.
    It was Channel 4 that broadcast The Great Climate Swindle. And it was Channel 4 who broke the scandal of the mass gang-raape of 11-year old girls in our northern mill-towns, back in 2005 when nobody in the establishment would talk about it. See the program Edge of the City, if you can find it. The MSM did not break this story for another ten years.
    Ralph

    • Ralfellis:
      “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Eh?
      Anyone that’s interested in the science rather than just having their bias confirmed really aught to watch this….
      [Snip. This is a ‘potholer-free’ site. -mod]
      and/or read this…
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
      [Also, any link that constantly repeats the “denialist” slur is not credible. -mod]

      • It really is fascinating how cultists think screaming, you’re wrong, counts as a rebuttal.

      • MarkW:
        Thanks for watching.
        No, it’s scientists pointing out where the producer misrepresented the science.
        And in one case a scientist saying how he was personally misrepresented by the treatment of his contribution in the film.
        And the how content in the earlier versions shown was cut …. it was too obviously bad.
        PS:
        Pointing out the misrepresentation of science is not “screaming” my friend.
        And contrary to what you have been lead to believe – you wont find the science on here, The Great Global Warming Swindle …. and almost certainly (no certainly) not in the “The climate Hustle”.
        As going by the title again accuses scientists of being frauds.
        Anyone believing that can be dismissed as irrational people.
        Finally: “how cultists think screaming, you’re wrong, counts as a rebuttal.
        Science counts my friend – so look for it.
        Contrary to your obvious thinking science is not politics.
        And even if it were, your politics does not gainsay mine.

      • If you’d watched the vid or followed the link – as invariably there are in my posts – then even you might have spotted some.

      • As usual, Toneb believes that someone reciting something that matches his religious beliefs qualifies as science.

      • “you might have spotted some” Yes you might see it if you look really hard and squint a little bit after hours of being subjected to our model output scenarios and oh look squirrel. I can usually spot CAGW drivel by it’s use of key words.

    • haha as opposed to what MarkW is doing… which is exactly the same, except without any relevant info to back it up.
      Scientists complaining that their own words are taken out of context and misrepresented is very valid information and it’s pretty sad to see that the skeptic crowd has been reduced to this.
      Cheers!
      Ben

  24. I’d say myself forget making any more money out of it: put it online as a downloadable MP4, and put a donate button next to it. And put a shortened lo-res preview on Youtube with a link back.
    Then get busy on reddit and twitter and facebook.

  25. 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 that one earlier. Christian Science is an oxymoron. I spoke one time to a Christian who tried to convince me that the Earth and universe are 6000 years old. Carbon dating, dinosaur bones and the Big Bang were created instantly. Apparently humans are curious and need something to do. God is marvellous.
      I stopped eye contact and backed out of the room slowly.

      • Alex,
        Some Christians believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old because they’ve been taught that the Bible says so, but that’s not true. This teaching is actually rooted in an inference that’s based upon a certain interpretation of the Genesis creation account and on a 15th century clergyman’s ideas about Ancient Hebrew genealogies.
        In my opinion, it’s an odd but mostly harmless belief. If someone chooses to believe that against the scientific evidence, let them. Some people choose to believe that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

      • “In my opinion, it’s an odd but mostly harmless belief.” I agree, as long as it stays just as a belief. As soon as it informs policy, it becomes dangerous. Someone who uses their belief in a 6000 year old Earth to dictate policy on teaching science in schools is no longer harmless.

      • Seaice1,
        I disagree.
        Newton was one of the most influential scientists in history, yet he produced more religious writings than anything else, and his Christian faith compelled him to advance science. Lincoln was a deeply religious man whose pious convictions informed his public policy which resulted in freeing millions of slaves.
        I don’t see the harm in teaching people that there exists a minority belief in Young Earth Creationism and in truthfully defining what it is and what evidence supports and refutes it. Where’s the harm in that? In fact, YEC is already taught in many schools, but it’s often presented falsely and it’s conflated with Intelligent Design.
        I believe the more dangerous path is the one where certain information is forbidden, and people are persecuted and imprisoned for speaking against scientific theories approved by governments.
        “Philosophy is a necessary activity because we, all of us, take a great number of things for granted, and many of these assumptions are of a philosophical character; we act on them in private life, in politics, in our work, and in every other sphere of our lives — but while some of these assumptions are no doubt true, it is likely, that more are false and some are harmful. So the critical examination of our presuppositions — which is a philosophical activity — is morally as well as intellectually important.”
        ― Karl Popper

      • seaice1 says:
        I agree, as long as it stays just as a belief. As soon as it informs policy, it becomes dangerous.
        That applies to the nonsense about disappearing ice. As soon as natural variability becomes the subject of government policy, the wacked-out cultists have won. They’re very dangerous, so it’s a good thing that serious scientists disregard their crazy beliefs.

      • I would say the same thing about CAGW. It was a harmless belief until it began it inform policy. It is still a belief but has become dangerous.

      • LarryFine – May 4, 2016 at 8:06 am said:

        Lincoln was a deeply religious man whose pious convictions informed his public policy which resulted in freeing millions of slaves.

        Wrong, ….. Lincoln was losing the Civil War and was thus forced to perform two (2) un-Constitutional acts: 1) he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, in hopes that the freed slaves would all fight for the North-Union Army; ….. 2) he signed legislation effective June 1863, that officially specified/allowed western Virginia to succeed from the State of Virginia because he needed control of both the Railroads and waterways from Maryland to the Ohio/Mississippi Rivers in order to win the War. (HA, and now you know the reason why West Virginia is such an odd shaped state.)

      • Larry,
        There is not a shred of evidence against the fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and all the evidence in the world in favor of it.
        Please state what evidence you imagine exists against the fact that humans and chimps descend from a common ancestor. Thanks.
        Here is one of the innumerable, incontrovertible bits of evidence supporting the fact of the common descent of humans and our fellow great apes:
        http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
        Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the other African great apes and orangs have 24. Human chromosome #2 resulted from the fusion of two smaller, standard ape chromosomes. This event is associated with our upright walking stance.
        Since the beginning of genomic studies, the close relationship of humans with other great apes has been obvious. This of course was predicted by biologists, given the many anatomical and protein similarities we share, to include blood groups. Even at the gross chromosomal level, the relationship is apparent.
        Humans, gorillas and chimpanzees share an ancestor in whom the fine genetic organization of chromosomes was similar to that of present humanity. A comparative analysis way back in 1982 of high-resolution chromosomes from orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee and man showed that 18 of 23 pairs of modern human chromosomes are virtually identical to those of our “common hominoid ancestor”, with the remaining pairs slightly different, as with #2. From this lineage, gorilla separated fist, followed by three major chromosomal rearrangements in a progenitor of chimpanzee and man before the final divergence of these two species (three if you count bonobos). A precursor of the hominoid ancestor and orangutan is also evident.

      • Larry,
        Lincoln was not technically a Christian, as attested by his best friends and wife. In his youth, he was an atheist, and may well have remained so until the end, although he did take to reading the Bible during his last years, as the death toll mounted and even his wife Mary began to complain about the cost in blood during the final year of the war.
        He freed the slaves as a war measure, to keep Britain and France out of the conflict. Before that, he wanted to deport blacks to Africa. The Emancipation Proclamation only “freed” slaves in the rebelling states, where he had no authority, while not freeing any in slave states still in the Union.

      • Samuel C Cogar,
        Lincoln’s Christian faith most certainly informed his politics. The reason why he returned to politics in 1854 was because the Missouri Compromise disgusted him morally. In his famous Peoria Speech, Lincoln evoked God when arguing against slavery.
        His views on what exactly to do about slavery evolved over time. It was a complex problem, and he advocated it’s slow abolishment. However, events of the war forced him to make public policy decisions. Slaves had been fleeing to the North, and they had to make new laws about how to deal with them.
        https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

      • Bye Doom,
        If the Common Descent hypothesis were true (assumption), the genomes of species that share a relatively recent common ancestor should exhibit a high degree of homology (prediction). Since the human and chimp genomes have many similar gene sequences (evidence), it’s variously asserted that Common Descent is a fact.
        However, not only is that assertion merely a broad conclusion and not evidence, it’s based on fallacious reasoning, namely the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (If P Then Q; Q; Therefore P).
        Even the predictions aren’t rigorous science because no value below which the hypothesis would fail is ever quantified. In fact, the methodology for measuring homology is an exercise in cherry-picking. And as early predictions of >99% homology gave way to far lower values (and the two very stable Y-chromosomes were found to be very different, and the epigenetics were found to be very different, and minor epigenetic changes were often found to be lethal), confidence in the hypothesis have remained certain.
        Even worse, this Common Descent “fact” is claimed to dovetail with evidence from other fields, like Paleontology. But this can’t be true, since results have varied wildly. For example, recent discoveries in genetics have altered estimates of when this supposed common ancestor lived from 6 mya to 12-13 mya. How can both of those wildly different results corroborate the fossil record? And why isn’t there a value beyond which the hypothesis is called into question?
        Clearly, no matter what the evidence is, it’s always interpreted to be in tune across all fields and is always said to support the hypothesis.
        “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”
        —Karl Popper

    • Well! That certainly settles it then. The Pope and the Christian Science Monitor believe we are headed to man-made climate doom! The judgement of such esteemed scientific authorities makes it a certainty. When have they ever been wrong? Well that Galileo thing was problematic. Mary Baker Eddy (ne Glover), the “the supreme healer and as infallible as Christ” and founder of Christian Science, was a little problematic. But, I’m sure they are both right this time!

      • I don’t know where you got that quote from, but Mary Baker Eddy always said, and I may be paraphrasing,
        “…follow me only so far as I am following Christ”. As I understand it, Christian Science teaches that Christ or Truth is the only power, and the power of Christ does not include any form of supernatural causation.

  26. Wish i’da laid eyes on it. Though I’d want ’em back after it was done. That crowd shore must’ve looked funny, their eyes bein’ glued to the screen and all. When you all folks roll yer eyes at Sarah Palin she should stomp ’em flat with her boot, that would teach ya to mind yer manners in front of a lady.
    What if every time they were makin’ a movie, when they looked right at ya they wouldn’t be seein’ a camera and a director, they’d be seein’ all the movie audiences in all the places to the end of time. Bored families on couches, people on airplanes and in doctor’s offices and airports. But the weirdest of all would be this immense black landscape of theater people, rows and rows of little heads and faces in dim flickering light staring with bugout eyes with their gigantic maws opening and closing to stuff in popcorn.
    If the world doesn’t seem like a strange place, perhaps you should look closer.

  27. When will it be available on DVD? I plan to order several copies to give to my ‘true believer’ friends and colleagues.

  28. About Sarah Palin, I suggest you stop letting the media do you “thinking” for you before you argue. For example, if you had watched Ms. Palin debate her Democrat rival before being elected governor of Alaska – the largest state in the union which is also more owned by the federal government’s Department of Interior than any other – you would be shell-shocked to know that her depth of knowledge about multiple use (ie, US Forest Service), environmental law, and the Constitutional separation of powers can better that of legal counselors at Interior Western Office. Instead, you people are dim dupes.

    • She’s got a funny accent, didn’t go to the right schools and doesn’t read the politically correct papers.
      To those who want to believe they are part of the social elite, that proves she is stupid.

  29. Fact check: The Indianapolis showing at Castleton Square was reasonably well attended for a Monday night movie, but I’d say it’s a stretch to call it a “near sellout,” as the head post did. Maybe the report was really from Danville?
    From the title I had thought the head post would report how much the movie actually grossed. That’s the information I was waiting to see. I doubt I’m alone.

  30. It may not be amiss to have the movie be preceded by some self-deprecatory comments of Mr. Morano’s about the shoestring budget and the resultant absence of production values like those the catastrophist establishment can afford. That lowering of expectations might make it less likely that the audience would confuse the quality of the medium with that of the message.
    For the general audience, I think the strongest element was first-person accounts of the conversions that occurred when scientists actually looked at the evidence–and of the professional consequences in which those conversions resulted.

    • I agree completely. The strength of the movie is real scientists and their questions. Scientists questioning science is obviously a scientific endeavor whereas shunning, demeaning, firing and dismissing those questioning scientists is massive evidence of FEAR… And grotesque HUBRIS.

  31. Well, last night Kimmel fired another shot. He responded to all the negative comments he received from his anti-Climate Hustle video by featuring a few of those comments. He, of course, selected only those that had grammatical or spelling errors and mocked them. He claimed that ALL the negative feedback had such errors, but it was obvious that he was just venting his spleen by picking on some particular egregious examples. After all, accidentally typing “lying to your teeth” rather than “lying through your teeth” is a such sign of a flawed argument. Kimmel is quite childish.
    I saw the movie at the South Miami AMC 24 and there were only 17 people. Shame as it was a good film. One elderly woman loudly proclaimed to her companion after the film, “I always knew it was bullsh**.” Gotta love that.

    • “He, of course, selected only those that had grammatical or spelling errors and mocked them. He claimed that ALL the negative feedback had such errors, but it was obvious that he was just venting his spleen by picking on some particular egregious examples.”
      I have not seen the film, but from the trailers and comments it seems possible that much of Morano’s film is based on exactly this technique.
      Did he, for example, cite the most extreme forecast for ice-free Arctic and portray this as “the climate science view”? Did he imply interviews with individual scientists was the same as the “climate science view”?

      • Well, how silly, Seaice1. You didn’t see the movie but you can guess its content. While Morano let climate alarmists be hoist by their own forecasts, that is not the same thing as criticizing their grammar as a sign of their intelligence. If Kimmel had answered his critics by countering their arguments, that would’ve been mature and within bounds. He did not and was not.
        When Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” came out in theaters, I spent my own good money to see it so that if I critiqued I would be speaking from knowledge of what was or wasn’t said in the film. You should’ve done the same.

  32. I was very happy to support this film. The theatre in Toronto was about 90% full.

  33. Saw this in a theater in Santa Cruz, California. My count was that 15 of 24 seats were filled. For Santa Cruz – which makes most of lefty California look downright conservative – this was quite a turnout! Sad to see the demographics though…my daughter was the only child there.

  34. I saw “Climate Hustle” in the Rave 14 Milford, Connecticut, theater that seats 296. It appeared to be about 25%full. The theater was very warm and my 85 year old mom even thought it was hot. Anyone know the whereabouts of James Hansen on that evening? 🙂

    • Tom Moran May 4, 2016 at 6:51 am
      Hi Glad to hear it played in Milford, Is the Rave 14 the old Connecticut Post Shopping Center. I left Milford in 1985 landed in Flagstaff AZ at NAU -long store.
      BTY I remember a Tom Moran from West Main St. School. Any chance we know one another from back then
      michael duhancik

  35. I get the comments about Sarah Palin and I saw some people leave the film during the panel presentation. However, if you think about it, she is a powerful influence on the country and is simply NOT a representative of the Republican establishment. Consider this: She was an early and strong supporter of the Ted Cruz Texas senatorial campaign along with a cadre of other Tea Party candidates that were successful in the 2010, 2012, and 2014 election cycles. In 2016, she was the first to stand up and support Donald Trump. She either has a lot of influence, knows how to pick winners, or both. She is informed on climate change. Kudos to the film makers for not only being brave enough to challenge climate change dogma but to be simultaneously brave enough to challenge Sarah Palin dogma.

    • It’s not what she says or her politics — it’s how she talks.
      Palin ia a blabbermouth.
      She’ll use 50 words when 10 could have done the job.
      If she is informed on climate change, it was not obvious.
      She will try to answer any questioned asked whether informed on the subject or not.
      Palin desperately needs an editor and a teleprompter — her off the cuff meandering speaking on climate change, in that notoriously poorly modulated voice, did not help the skeptics.

  36. 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.

    • Spot on! And because they were left unanswered I was doubting myself and left more sympathetic to the alarmists.

    • Agree . The Cineplex ( 1 of 3 locations it showed in Colorado Springs ) I saw it at had a moderate crowd considering the capacity . But the whole place had very little business for their 20 screens .
      I would give the effort a B . Starts kind of slowly and spends too much time on segues . I think despite its efforts it remains something which I doubt will penetrate the suckered sheeple . It’s beyond their attention span or ability to think rationally instead of socially .
      I think many more voices if just Skype cameos , eg : Lindzen , Rutan , Schmitt , Dyson , to name a few would have added impact .
      Palin has , unfortunately , been cartooned by the left media , greatly reducing her value as a persuader .
      But next step should be Netflix or/and Amazon .

  37. Climate Hustle was a disaster. If anything it made me less of a skeptic. Constantly through tho movie I would ask myself why they did not use some other point to refute the alarmist that I had gleaned from following this issue for 15 years or so and when they would not, I would then doubt myself that maybe what I remember did not stand up to scrutiny and I should not be such a skeptic. For example, when they were talking about temperatures/ ice core record I expected to see this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
    I can’t believe nobody told Mark it was not ready for release.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. Glad I went. Took 3 folks with..one skeptic two light believers. I estimate close to 50% full (or empty) depending on your perspective, not bad for Fort Myers Fla. Feed back from my group was Sarah Palin was not an asset, but she had some big negatives going in from my left leaners!
    Would like to have had more about where the Alarmist money comes from and how much!

  41. MODERATOR- What’s happened to the review I’ve tried to post twice?-
    [nothing, it was held for inspection by the wordpress.com system just like many other comments that contain a lot of words. approved now along with all of your duplicates. -mod]

    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.

  42. “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!

  43. 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.

  44. Watched the movie – it was OK. Understand that I have been reading WUWT (and other sites, but not as religiously) almost daily since at least 2010. As a result, I learned very little new. However, I did learn some. I remember being confused when Ms Curry started making statements that agreed with my observations. Several other scientists there have confused me over the years, and I didn’t realize it was because they had changed their positions. I still have a hard time believing a liberal-and-a-scientist can take a stand against CAGW when CAGW promotes liberals’ ideals of wealth distribution and larger government.
    However, the folks I took with me were somewhat amazed. (I worry about that. I could swear I’ve told them some of those facts ad nauseam; I fear they’ve started to block me out!) For them, it was a shock that Cambrian (DINOSAURS!) CO2 rates were nearly 20 times higher than today, and that right now we are very close to the minimum required to support life on the planet. More time could have been spent on that last item.
    But at least the message got through.
    And although I dislike ad hominem attacks, Palin shouldn’t have been on the panel. But the scientist on that panel was someone I did enjoy hearing from, and I would have preferred more focus on him. Of the ~100 people in the theater, maybe 10 left during that time, and discussions in the Mens’s Room and common areas had that as the only negative – and I live in the conservative part (Orange County) of California. I understand Marc needed a politician, but that one comes with big negatives.
    Glad I saw the movie, though!

    • Yup. No dinosaurs or visible land animals at all in the Cambrian. None in the rest of the Paleozoic Era either, nor the Early Epoch of the Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era. But ever since the late Middle or early Late Epoch of the Triassic, ie for more than the past 232 million years, there have been dinosaurs. Precise duration depends upon what counts as a dinosaur. Near-dinosaurs existed in the Middle Triassic before evolving into full-fledged, so to speak, dinosaurs.
      CO2 was much higher than now during the Cambrian Period and most of the rest of the Paleozoic Era, but also higher during the Mesozoic, ie the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods. Also during most of our present Cenozoic Era. The only previous time in which it got as low as during the current Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs was the ice age that occurred in the Carboniferous and Permian Periods, toward the end of the Paleozoic Era.

  45. My theater was near sold out. Hope it was a big success. While I have been a global warming denier since the late 90’s, I took my lady to learn a few things. Look forward to getting the DVD. Let’s put an end to the Environmental Industrial Complex.

  46. The showing in Reno, NV was also well attended, the theater was at about 3/4 filled. After the main movie and before the discussion session there was applause from the audience. This documentary was well done!

  47. Great that everyone loves the film who was in the US on the night it showed…… but how can the rest of us see it ??

  48. “failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.”
    The gravity/yogurt effect – fundamental.

  49. Giv’em suckers 25 years of yogurt tree ring correlation and they come modeling the gravity causation. peer reviewed paywalled.

  50. I attended the showing in Reno, NV….. Was hoping for a better turnout, as it was I’d estimate it to be around 40-60 people. Probably 75% were 50yrs or older, and did recognize a few physicists I knew in the audience.
    You could tell from the general reactions that the audience was already in tune with the movie’s message.
    Critically, there’s some time spent on graphics that isn’t productive, but would lend well towards “place commercial here” TV air, and the panel discussion had many people bored and leaving. Sorry, Sarah Palin didn’t help much.
    For a low budget flic, it did a pretty good job. I’d watch it again, and will recommend it.

  51. I’m glad the movie seems to have done well, but the vitally important thing is to get it seen beyond people who already know the points being made. It MUST be put on youtube and as many other places as possible where it can be seen by a wider audience and it’s effect become culmulative over the years.

  52. Great reviews from Montana:

    I especially liked the kids comments. They expressed concern about the fact they are only being given one side of things in school. Kids sometimes have a better BS meter than adults do.

  53. Following is a post from my blog on my website http://www.DibsOnYourKids.com about Climate Hustle. If you read the environment chapter in my book “Who’s Got Dibs on Your Kids?” you’ll know that I am a fervent “denier” as to anthropogenic causes. I just say that to illustrate my disappointment in the movie was sincere:
    Did you see the movie Climate Hustle this week? It was a one-time-only showing at hundreds of theaters across the United States. I was eager to see it because it was promoted as being the definitive movie to debunk all the global-warming/climate-change “science.”
    I was disappointed. Climate Hustle did provide a lot of information pulling the climate-crisis rug out from under its proponents, but it was the presentation itself that was lacking. I went in a Climate Hustle believer, so it shouldn’t have taken much to get me on board, but I found myself more bored than on-board.
    By contrast, I watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth movie with a lot of background knowledge about all the misleading information, misinformation, and absolutely false information, and I was still impressed. That movie ended and the first thing I said was, “That was well done!”
    The producers of Climate Hustle had an opportunity to open a lot of eyes, and change a lot of minds and hearts, but I think they blew it. I don’t know if other viewers felt the same way I did (if any of you saw it, please let me know your thoughts) but I will be more reluctant to spend money to see another, if another is produced, battling the climate-change war. There was a lot of good information, but one didn’t walk out of the theater saying, “Wow!” That’s what I wanted.
    Following the movie there was also a filmed panel discussion with panelists Sarah Palin, David Legates, and Marc Morano. Sarah Palin added nothing to the discussion. She surprised me by seeming unknowledgeable and inarticulate. A quick internet search after the movie made it apparent David Legates, Ph.D., professor at the University of Delaware, College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, has previously ruffled a few global-warming proponents’ feathers. Marc Morano of Climate Depot served as the host throughout the movie.
    You can read a rather thorough review, written after Climate Hustle’s December 2015 premier in Paris, at http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22221-documentary-climate-hustle-exposes-global-warming-con-job. The people there apparently were more pleased with it than I was.

  54. Great movie, and almost a full house at my local theater.
    Something interesting, though: at every movie I have ever seen in the theater, the theater always plays about 10 minutes of trailers, ads for their concessions, and advisories for moviegoers to turn off their cell phones. So a movie scheduled to play at 7:00 pm, for example, always starts around 7:10 pm.
    Not so with “Climate Hustle.” Without explanation, the theater started the movie at 7:00 pm on the dot. It’s like they did so intentionally, in hopes moviegoers would miss the first 10 minutes of the movie.

  55. Great stuff, need much more of the same. I believe it essential to also collect and preserve all CAGW films, talks, debates, a newspaper archive, concerning hype on warming, ice, snow, floods droughts, hurricanes, ocean ‘acidification’, cooked statistics, erasure of warming periods, and the cooling periods, extinctions, polar bear and penguin prognostications, preservation of “homogenized” temperatures, along with real raw data (not the reworked ‘raw’ data. etc., perhaps even make the projecty it into an educational institute for researching the gloom and doom phenomena. Also make more films: clips of alarmists followed by clips of what happened 20 years later, etc. Also, collect old newspaper and news videos and films dating back to when imminent ice age was flogged as our fault with looming deaths of 2/3 human population from starvation.
    Eventually a big film on the history of the gloomster doomsters and the apparent connection with political propaganda – currently the anti-democracy, anti-free enterprise new-world-order stuff. Do some digging (news media now do what they are told by the establishment) of the journalistic kind on Soros, the big fat foundations funding destruction and killing freedom. (I think at least a tax on this kind of stuff might be necessary – they should have their tax free charity status revoked on the grounds of being political partisan organizations and funds they pay out, even for research should be taxed). The massive project would all feed into a cautionary tale on the anatomy and MO of these kinds of ‘movements’. They share a lot with terrorist organizations! Maybe Lysander….University should take it on as a research institution.

  56. The documentary was poor to fair,
    and I’m biased to be very kind to climate skeptics.
    A week later I am still shocked by how incompetent it was in teaching climate science, and the need for scientific skepticism … especially about predictions of the future.
    The jokes were second rate too.
    The sound quality was surprisingly poor, and we missed some words.
    My wife rated the documentary poor, and fell asleep a few times.
    That matters because she’s a novice on the subject and learns best from videos.
    Her overall review was:
    If this is the best skeptics can do, they’re going to lose the fight for honest climate science unless the climate gets unusually cold.
    After we left, I asked the wife if she recalled the most important fact about climate on our planet:
    — The climate of our planet is ALWAYS changing.
    She didn’t recall that important message being emphasized, and neither did I.
    I don’t recall the documentary saying the climate in 2015 / 2016 is great — much better than the cool, low CO2 centuries from 1300 to 1800.
    I don’t recall the documentary emphasizing that people have no idea what the future climate will be,
    I almost did not attend — after a great dinner at a nearby Bahama Breeze restaurant where appetizers and drinks were half price — we walked to the theater and found out the tickets were $15 each.
    I had not been to a movie in at least five years and was shocked by the price — I exclaimed “$15 for a documentary — you must be kidding !”
    We turned around to leave and another attendee, who was a stranger, gave me a spare ticket for free — said the person he bought it for couldn’t make it.
    So I bought one ticket for $15 and the wife and I got in for $15.total.
    I wish I had skipped the movie.
    There were about 50 people in the theater in Livonia Michigan.
    The sound quality was mediocre and we really needed captions to be sure we heard the old TV clips and the words from those scientists with accents.
    The silly graphics between “chapters” grew tiresome.
    We stayed after the documentary for the discussion, but five minutes of listening to Sarah Palin’s strange verbal cadence, and meandering thoughts, was more than I could take. The wife can barely take about one minute of her blabbering so I did her a favor and we left the theater.
    The documentary gave climate scaremongers like ALBore too much screen time — just show their predictions with words on a slide, and then refute them by giving all the screen time to real scientists.
    There was some information about the politics of climate scaremongering … but I don’t recall discussion of the false DDT, acid rain, and hole in the ozone layer scaremongering in the past.
    The coming global cooling scaremongering in the 1970s was covered well.
    I wish this had been a great documentary.
    If it was, I’d have little reason to continue writing a climate change blog as a public service — my last post would be: Go see Climate Hustle.
    But the documentary was mediocre, not persuasive, and not effective for people who just wanted a simple climate science 101 lesson.
    Climate blog for non-scientists.
    No ads. No money for me.
    A public service.
    If you do not learn more there,
    then you did from Climate Hustle,
    I’ll eat my hat:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  57. Finally a bit of the truth
    Loose Lips Sink Ships, and when Leonardo DeCaprio thought Calgary’s Chinook’s were Global Warming it shows he may be a good actor but not a scientist.
    I still want to make a movie called “Convenient Lies” and show Al Gore’s air conditioning bill.
    But the facts are what is important in science, and the news media are doing everything to stay in business through fear and hyper-sensationalism.
    http://canadafreepress.com/article/energy-polices-gone-awry
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
    http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/co2-temp-sun/temperature-and-co2-history/
    Germany’s New World Order:
    https://www.quora.com/Should-other-nations-follow-Germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power-1
    Canada’s Greed Energy Plan:
    http://www.windontario.ca/
    Quote from above link:
    (The Driving Force
    ”The province’s wind and solar power initiatives were decided and implemented in such haste
    that “no comprehensive business-case evaluation was done to objectively evaluate the impacts
    of the billion-dollar commitment.”
    Auditor General of Ontario
    The Liberals introduced and passed the Green Energy Act 2009.
    The NDP have supported the Liberals on wind energy since its inception.
    The PC’s do not support subsidized wind power.
    The key person behind Ontario’s move to Wind Energy is Gerald Butts who is currently chief advisor to Federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
    Butts was Principal Secretary to Premier McGuinty, who states that he was intimately involved in the government’s environmental initiatives.
    Members of the Liberal party are profiting from Ontario’s wind energy.
    One example:
    In 2004, Mike Crawley, the (then) President for the Ontario Liberals,
    was awarded a wind power contract that guarantees his company $66,000 a day for a total of $1/2 Billion dollars.
    Since then, Crawley has been awarded additional Wind Project contracts.
    Crawley is currently President of the Federal Liberal Party.
    There are now about 50 resident wind lobbyists in Toronto.
    The Wind Industry held a fundraising event for Kathleen Wynne in April 2013.
    Those who promote Wind power, benefit financially by doing so.
    David Suzuki, Pembina Institute, Cleantech, MaRs, Environmental Defence,
    Friends of the Wind, Windfacts and CANWEA.)

Comments are closed.