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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
I thought all dvd players were multizone now.
If you want to see the video you can go here. However, I suggest that you get a basin and cloth so that you can wash yourself after you finished viewing.
“We’re NOT [trimmed] with you! Paid for by people who know more that you do!”
Yep. That got my attention.
And dump Sarah? The woman is a fool.
Look at what the woman has accomplished in her life. Can you match her?
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.
Who is Jimmy Kimmel?
Late-night American talk show host.
Sounds like a brand of dog food.
I raise Rottweilers. They have raw chicken for dinner and alternate between Kimmel in the morning (winter) and horse shit in summer. Not much difference really.
ChuckleOL .
( Boy I like the Disqus blog widget better than this WordPress . )
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.
they didn’t have dvds for sale at all the showings?
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”
Good of you to acknowledge you see decent people as the enemy….
All truth is political Truth, eh comrade? F=ma only if the central committee approves.
Toneb
No-one is interrupting you
“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.
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.
If you want to make a bigger impact, make ‘Climate Hustle’ available to high schools.
Also, add a subtitle(s) file (multi-language)
“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.
seaice, the producers would have no problem with that whatsoever.
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 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.
who paid for Gore’s movie? that certainly cost a ton to produce. the production quality was very high.
Looking forward to seeing it in the UK!
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.
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 science counts, why don’t you ever have any?
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.
Toneb,
Peter Sinclair is no more about science than John Cook is. Or you, for that matter.
“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.
I wonder if Channel 4 ever ran Al Gore’s deeply flawed film, “An Inconvenient ‘Truth'”.
Schools in the UK had been showing it, then someone sued and a judge ruled that they had to give handouts to the kids to un-brainwash them.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hByNdzS3lGA/S23rZbT9maI/AAAAAAAAABg/5x8JNF5XClM/s320/al-gore-global-warming-inconvenienttruth-420×377.jpg
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
bonbon,
Wake me when you have something worthwhile to post.
Audience participation? Did they stand up and cheer when the spaceship went to light speed? That is my benchmark.
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.
Torrent it. I will seed for years
Just when you thought it was safe…. Another model based doomsday scenario…http://www.lighthousenewsdaily.com/worlds-oceans/6165/
There’s no need to fear, UNderdog is here!
The UN is taking control of most of the planet in an treaty that has an appropriate acronym, LOST.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/22990-un-grabs-for-control-of-oceans-with-revised-law-of-the-sea-treaty-lost
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:
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
Bye Doom,
Lincoln was an atheist in his youth, and he eschewed denominations, but he came to faith in God and was converted to Christianity. In fact, his last words were about wanting to visit Jerusalem.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle-God-Presidents-Struggle-ebook/dp/B0078FA86G
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.
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.
https://philipkdickreview.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/the-eyes-have-it/ 🙂
What’s your point?
I was just asking when it will be available on DVD like everyone else. I guess that was too subtle, I’ll try to use simpler language next time.
Can’t wait till it appears in torrents so I can download it. Ok, only kidding. This is one movie I’m going to pay for.
When will it be available on DVD? I plan to order several copies to give to my ‘true believer’ friends and colleagues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was very happy to support this film. The theatre in Toronto was about 90% full.
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.
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
Arrgh long story
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.