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 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 .
Agree.
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.
Trouble is LexingtonGreen:
That link is to a post that has misleading graphs – Alley graph of GRISP2 ice-core data that ends in 1855 and misses the whole of the post-industrial heating..
Did you think that meant current temps were below the MWP?
Nope …
http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg
And that the HCO was natural variation?
Nope….
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
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.
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.
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!
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.
“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!
Get it out into the rest of the world.
Then do it again.
When’s the sequel?
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.
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!
Oops – missed it on the dinosaurs….
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.
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.
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!
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 ??
“failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.”
The gravity/yogurt effect – fundamental.
Giv’em suckers 25 years of yogurt tree ring correlation and they come modeling the gravity causation. peer reviewed paywalled.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
Will climate hustle be on video?.
I missed the movie.