Gore’s “inconvenient bomb” continues – climate doom movie tanks due to limited release in only 180 theaters

From the “let’s limit our losses on this stinker” department.

Last week I wrote about Gore’s movie, a sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth” coming in 35th on opening weekend, and being in only 4 theaters. I predicted it would be a bomb, and wondered why the film company Paramount, would only put it in 4 theaters nationwide. This past weekend, it went to “wide release”, except that it didn’t – it was only in 180 theaters nationwide. From BoxOfficeMojo.com

Also, look at the earnings gap between 14th and 15th place, it’s huge. Note also the difference in the number of theaters, equally huge.

Critics of my post last week suggested that I’d missed the critical factor; it was at the top of the list in earning per theater at $31k. I countered with the fact that it was likely due to acolytes:

The interesting thing here is that clearly, Paramount is not getting behind the movie at all. There are some states where the movie isn’t even being shown. Dr. Roy Spencer reports it isn’t even being shown in Alabama that he can find. It’s also not playing in Idaho, and Paramount has completely ignored the state capital of Boise.

Ditto for Bismarck, ND.

The per-theater earnings dropped to $5000.00 this past weekend, and while that’s a good showing compared to the other movies, it still if mostly due to acolytes. if Paramount had done wide release, say 3000 to 4000 theaters like the top movies on the list, and that number held, that would likely put Gore’s movie in the top three. But, I think Paramount has done the math, and they realize that based on political bent, about half (or more) of the general population simply doesn’t care about Gore’s latest doom rehash, and won’t bother to attend.That’s why they are avoiding places like Boise and Bismarck. They know the population there, and know they just won’t be interested.

This is likely why Paramount has limited release to major cities – they are courting the left – and that’s not going to last long.

Next week, I predict this movie will take the path of cooling, and start dropping on the charts. It has a short shelf-life, much like Gore’s ideas that continually are being proven wrong by nature that just won’t cooperate with him.

The former vice president has a poor record. Over the past 11 years Mr. Gore has suggested that global warming had caused an increase in tornadoes, that Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier would disappear by 2016, and that the Arctic summers could be ice-free as soon as 2014. These predictions and claims all proved wrong. – Bjorn Lomborg, in a Wall Street Journal article

 

Advertisements

165 thoughts on “Gore’s “inconvenient bomb” continues – climate doom movie tanks due to limited release in only 180 theaters

    • And all of Al Gore’s followers need to get ahead of this problem by staging equally large protest marches declaring a unified message, “This Is #NotMyNumber15Movie!!”

    • … so far behind it that they never, … never, … ever … entertain the thought of watching it, as to do so will likely increase destruction of their brain cells past the tipping point.

  1. Also in week #2, Atomic Blonde was in 3,326 theatres compared to Gore’s 180. I don’t even know what Atomic Blonde is about, but it clearly is more important to the masses than global warming.

    • “Atomic Blonde” is about Charlize Theron being nekkid in a bathtub full of ice. Be thankful that Gore’s movie did not follow suit.

      • You’ve given me an idea that should confound most AGW supporters–Show side-by-side nekkid pictures of Al Gore and Charlize Theron with the caption: “Guess which one supports AGW.” If you put Ms. Theron’s picture on the left, it will be five minutes before anyone even looks at Al Gore’s picture; and five microseconds after looking at big Al, before returning to Ms. Theron.

  2. Anthony, the performance of this latest Gore-ible movie is in part due to your dedication in providing the real truth to the masses. I find it interesting that the media moved over forty years from “A new ice age possible” to “Global warming” and abruptly to the softer term “Climate change.”
    Thanks to great sites like yours more people are stopping to think, and we’re all learning. In fact, we are experiencing “Climate cycling”, and we always will.

    • I don’t think the changed to “Climate Change” because it’s softer.
      It is more malleable.
      It allows lack of warming to also be blamed on Man.

      • There is actually an international standard NAMED the ”International Standard Atmosphere” which explicitly expresses a variety of ways that Climate is actually not changing: if it were, in any significant way, the international standards all our equipment is calibrated and governed in relation to, would have changing values.

        The International Standard Atmosphere has remained in place, unchanged in any real way, since it was adopted.

      • Glad to see you are examining the feedback diagnosis problem in some detail. I scanned through your write-up…did you ever come up with a diagnosed net feedback factor?

      • I did not take that any further than what was written up. One indication of the overall feedback / climate sensitivity is the time constant. The response time of the system indicates climate sensitivity and can be compared to time-constants extracted from GMC behaviour.

        I can’t remember the source off the top of my head ( possibly Santer 2014) but published results are typically 30 to 36 months for GCMs against the 8 month figure I found.

        It should be stressed that this was from tropics only, the GCM figures are probably global.

        Almost all work I have seen tries to regress forcings directly not accounting for the lagging effect and the change of profile of the transient.

        As you wrote in one of your papers:

        Diagnosis of feedback cannot easily be made in such situations, because the radiative forcing decorrelates the co-variations between temperature and radiative flux.

        I think this method is a first order attempt at doing just that. It addressed the decorrelation and this leads to a more correct estimation of the system response.

        The key point is that volcanic forcing has become a fiddle factor, rather than an quantity derived from observation as is used to be ( Lacis et al 1992 ) . Reducing the forcing makes climate appear more sensitive to radiation change to get the same historical dips. This leads to the need for other fiddle factors which give positive feedbacks and amplify the effect of all forcings. Lowering the scaling of AOD to get volcanic forcing , is necessary to end up with high sensitivity models.

        I thank you for your blog post which inspired this analysis.

        If you have other questions, you can drop a comment on my about page. ( I may not be following this post for too long. ).

    • I’m surprised there is sufficient left over power to run a theater within 2 miles of Gore’s house.

      • And then there’s this version – could be run in a shoebox near you. No need for expensive cinemas – all his points in a few seconds.

    • less than 2 miles from Gore’s house.
      less than 2 miles from one of Gore’s mansions.

      That is on the basis that Al Gore still owns the Monticito, CA ocean view place
      http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/al-gores-new-villa-in-california.html
      This gives the address as: 1504 East Mountain Drive, Montecito, CA, 93108
      Zillow shows the history as last listed for sale Dec. 2009 for $9.9 million (6,600 sqft on 1.5 acres) and listing removed July 2010, with no later history.
      https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1504-E-Mountain-Dr-Santa-Barbara-CA-93108/15880573_zpid/

      Rumor has it that Gore has at least one more “house” to his name, but it is hard to find even a recent mention of the Monticito place in connection with Gore.

  3. Other then Dunkirk there is nothing of interest on that list. I would hazard a guess that it would be a similar situation for most who are past the kids in the house stage of life. Apart from ideology it would be interesting to see what the average age of Al’s public is which would then be a good indication of how relevant or not this issue is for the below 30’s, “the future”, or should that be: how relevant Al is to them.
    Actually cunning how the way the computer type set for the name Al (upper and lower case) is similar to how it comes up, in upper case that is, with the abreviation for Artificial Intelligence.

    • Re Dunkirk:

      My uncle Donald Fraser MacRae survived the sequel to Dunkirk: “Dieppe 1942”. About 90% of his group were killed on the Dieppe beach in the first hour after landing. Wounded twice, he carried ten severely-wounded men across the fire-swept beach, loaded them into a rowboat, and pushed it several miles into the English Channel where they were picked up by a Canadian destroyer. They were the only survivors of the Essex Scottish at Dieppe. Fraser was seconded to the Essex Scottish as Intelligence Officer, and was an officer in his home regiment, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. He was awarded the Military Cross, hailed as a hero and feted around Britain – the Allies did not have much to celebrate in 1942.

      The early days of WW1 and WW2 were debacles for those under the command of British Generals. They appeared to have no understanding of how warfare had modernized, and tried to learn by throwing young men into senseless slaughter, and even then were slow learners and had to be replaced.

      The first Canadian regiment in the field in WW1 was the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. Of the original contingent of 100 officers and 1000 other ranks, only 2 officers and about 30 men survived. They were recycled to extinction. As a little kid, I met the founder of the regiment, Canadian Brigadier General Hamilton Gault. The Patricia’s were the last privately-raised regiment in the British Empire. Hammie Gault was wounded twice and lost a leg in battle – he was a courageous man who led from the front.

      In WW2, the allied armies were stunned as the German Panzers skirted the Maginot Line and chased the Brits down to the beach at Dunkirk. The Germans then paused for several days. The Brits were very lucky to escape.

      **********************************

      • Allan, in fact, a lot of good men, French, British, possibly Belgian, died that the rest could escape. The RAF actually performed their ‘Nine Days Wonder’ to make it all possible. (Total German plane losses for the campaign, about 741 IIRC, which hurt them later). Mainly unseen behind the cloudbanks over the land we flooded to keep the tanks out. Such weather is called an “act of God’ in some circumstances. We were not beaten, but the French were broken by traitors and Guderian’s new tank/stuka tactics. And German use of Amphetamines. So we had to retreat with them, just like in WW1. However, it was the gutless politicians (Churchill excepted) who put us in that position, not the Generals. Most of them came through WW1, and proved to be capable, sometimes brilliant. From their results.
        As for Dieppe, we had to make trial landings to learn. It was not the only one, but a security breach led to Canada’s grievous losses, because they were waiting.

      • I remember reading years ago that Der Fuhrer specifically instructed the troops to throttle back and allow Dunkirk to be evacuated. The theory was that at the time he was hoping for an alliance with Britain or at least
        a negotiated neutrality. Does anyone know the details?

      • D.J.Hawkins: you are possibly referring to the book by Richard North: The many not the few.
        Very interesting read.

      • I’m learning the Brits have never valued competence but choose leaders from a list of school chums. It worked as long as the enemy only had sharp sticks.

      • Brett, I believe the beginning of WW1 was a debacle, a slaughterhouse for our young men. The Brits actually still had cavalry in WW1, fighting against machine guns and modern artillery – what could go wrong?

        Men with rifles were ordered to advance over a mile of open ground against well dug-in German troops with modern weaponry – that was the order of the day.

        At Beaumont Hamel during the Battle of the Somme, the Newfoundland Regiment was almost wiped out, with few if any German casualties. Only 68 men answered roll call after the battle – 324 were killed or missing and presumed dead, and 386 were wounded. Over 90% of the regiment were killed or wounded on one day.

        That was the story all over the front during WW1.

        The French suffered approximately 150,000 casualties in their attempts to gain control of Vimy Ridge and surrounding territory. Later in the war, the Canadians under Canadian Generals took Vimy Ridge in four days with less than 4000 fatalities. In 1922, the French government ceded to Canada in perpetuity Vimy Ridge and the land surrounding it.

        Dieppe was another debacle by British Generals, this time in WW2. Lord Louis Mountbatten, the King’s cousin, was in charge. Field Marshall Montgomery was strongly opposed and predicted a disaster. Sadly, Monty was right.

      • @DJ Hawkins: The reason Hitler delayed the panzers was that they had outrun both their supply chain and their infantry support. Another panzer group could have possibly made the attack but would have had to travel over only two or three roads through the lowlying flood prone wetlands. Hitler deemed this too much risk if they should face any opposition. If there were truth to the idea that he deliberately let the brits go so as to negotiate a peace with them he wouldn’t have continued the air and naval attacks on the brits. Besides, he’d have been in a much better position to negotiate Britain out of the war if he’d first smashed their army and taken the remnants prisoner. It’s all in Keitel’s diary (head of the OKW).

      • This is intended to be a response to Brett Keene, but who knows where it will end up.

        According to a documentary that I watched 2x, the purpose of the raid was not the waste of human life that it is portrayed as but rather an attempt of seize an Enigma machine and as many papers as possible. Dieppe was the center of the German navy along the French coast.

      • I think the documentary you are referring to is a David O’Keefe book and documentary: “A few days in August ” is the title, I think.

      • Yesterday was the 75th Anniversary of the Dieppe Raid.- here is my Uncle Don’s story:

        WWII Canadian Army Record of Colonel Donald Fraser MacRae – September 12, 1946

        NAME: MacRAE, Donald, Fraser MILITARY CROSS (Dieppe)
        REGIMENTAL NUMBER: Captain
        UNIT: Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Highlanders
        ENLISTED: 10 Sept 39
        AT: Cornwall
        CIVIL OCCUPATION: Chemical Engineer

        [excerpts]

        In May 42 he. was attached to the Essex Scottish and with this regiment took part in the attack on Dieppe, where he was wounded and won the MC for the courage he displayed when under enemy fire.

        Capt. MacRae was attached to the Essex Scottish during the action at Dieppe, 19 Aug 42, and was the only officer of this unit who returned from the shore landing. He displayed great coolness and courage throughout the engagement, and at great risk to himself moved from place to place leading and encouraging groups of men who were being held up by the extremely heavy enemy fire. Subsequently, although himself wounded early in the raid, Capt. MacRae dragged several wounded men through the fire-swept beach area to the water’s edge. Finding a small abandoned craft he lifted the wounded into the boat, and himself swimming, pushed it two miles through the water, at which point he was rescued with his party. His leadership, coolness and resolution set a fine example to the men during the operation, and in the withdrawal saved several valuable lives.
        __________________

    • Actually BABY DRIVER and THE BIG SICK are both quite good movies and not just pablum for kids. I recommend both. Interestingly I saw the preview to Gore’s latest a while back and almost was sick in the theater. A few weeks later my wife and I were late for the start of THE BIG SICK and I had my fingers crossed that we would miss the Gore preview but alas, had to set through it a second time. This time I could ignore it, as I due with most coming previews.

  4. Netflix has the movie Icarus (must see). The whole time I was watching the revelation that many in Tour de France competition and about half of Russian Olympians since about 1980 are doping, I couldn’t help but think of the day when there is a similar movie revealing how the ACGW scam was carried off.

  5. A film warning about global warming, created by someone whose lifestyle emits 38 times more CO2 than the average American does.”The Great Dictator” would be more appropriate. A further simile would be that the current one would have more pratfalls than Chaplin’s 1940 original. Even better add in the footage of Laurel & Hardy moving the piano up the steps in LA to demonstrate total incompetence of those behind AGW.

  6. I watched a short segment of Bill Mahrer’s interview with Gore (of course it was short, I could only watch that smug fool for so long) but he did ask Gore about the supposed ‘tipping points’ that Gore’s first movie talked about. He mentioned how we exceeded the tipping points but nothing happened (bravo for him or so I thought). Gore then proceeded to redefine “tipping points” and I thought to myself – wow he must have talked with Bill to ask him how he was able to redefine the word “is”. Obfuscation and change the argument was all he had. Of course Mahrer did not pursue it further but that’s as expected.

  7. I just checked out the Texas showings – it looks like they’ve got a handful of theaters booked in the Dallas and Austin areas (and suburbs) but that’s it. It may hold up for a bit in Austin, but I expect the Dallas venues to close pretty quickly.

    I’m kind of surprised that they didn’t even bother trying Houston or S. A. Well, maybe I’m not.

  8. If they count all the freebee tickets given to the faithful as a sale then the numbers are worse than that!

  9. Reality is that it did very well, especially for a “documentary” I went to the theater Sat+Sun and both times it was promoted before the movie I went to was shown. I suspect it will come out in even more theaters, at $5K per theater it is the second ranked movie. Like it or not Gore has a hit IMO, and he is very crafty in his talking, a true politician who knows exactly what to say and how to mislead as many people as possible.

    The budget to make a movie like his is peanuts too, I saw Dunkirk and it cost $150m to make, cant find a nbr on InConTruth2, but the first movie cost $1 million

    • That’s like saying Joel Osteen had a “hit”, if he put together a 90 minute clip of pieces of his sermons, and then got all his TV followers to go watch them at a theater.

      It’s not really a big deal to preach to your own choir, and that’s all Al is doing here. You cannot evaluate this like entertainment, because that’s not what it is. This is Good, Ol’ Time Religion, and Al is selling tickets to his Summer Revival.

    • The question is does the movie “have legs”? If it can keep up that $5,000 per week then yes. I doubt it; even the faithful are unlikely to see it more than once. I vote for “flash-in-the-pan”.

    • Nonsense. AIT did $50 million worldwide. That was a hit. That compares to real films. This is nothing.

  10. My understanding is that the film company does not generally control how many theaters show a film. Theater owners negotiate terms with the distribution company, so the small number of theaters showing this film likely reflects a lack of interest by theater owners. We will have to wait to see if it ever goes into wider distribution.

    • It’s not uncommon for the distribution company to force theaters to take a turkey in order to carry a winner. Looks like Gore’s promoters couldn’t get their clunker hooked up to a rocket.

  11. Acolytes will really go out of their way to attend something. Most people will know at least one person who has driven hundreds of miles to attend a regular season football game.

    • I drove 1300 miles to catch two Pokemon in Pokemon Go, but I don’t think I will drive the 5 miles to see this new movie.

  12. I suppose a fair comparison would be with the original release, which opened with more than twice as much, also at 4 theatres, in 2006 dollars. It went on to lifetime earnings of $24 million.

  13. I think that Paramount has taken a different tack with this movie to milk as much as they possibly can out of it.

    By dribbling it out in a few theaters at a time they hope to maintain enough anticipation interest in markets where it has not been shown yet, to boost overall attendance and minimize losses.

    If they’d had a real full release, it would have faded away to absolutely nothing by now and be known to be an unmitigated flop.

    Noticeable by its absence is the cost of the movie. It isn’t listed.

    That kinda indicates they don’t want folks to know how much money is being lost on this production.

    Perhaps Gore expects to make his money off the companion book to the movie and from the $100K a pop fee he commands on the speech circuit.

    • Like Public television membership drives. You can watch great shows like this all year (they save the great ones for the member drive of course) before we go back, if you give just $120 which can be billed at just $10 per month we will give you the companion book, and this free I <3 PBS grocery bag, with Al Gores picture.

  14. If the information in the movie is so important that the future of mankind is threatened then Al Gore charging for it is rightly called extortion.

  15. Can we get a list of the theaters? I would have serious concerns for those zip codes. And how many theaters were in the Oakland-Berkeley area?

  16. What a pile of horseshit the graphic is on this post – it is deliberately set out to misinform and mislead independent-minded readers.

    Rotten Tomatoes gives the documentary a good rating – you can view it here:

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/an_inconvenient_sequel_truth_to_power/

    This is a positive review by the NYT:

    And another by news.com.au:

    http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/review-a-bruised-but-not-beaten-al-gore-fights-for-the-planet-in-an-inconvenient-sequel/news-story/f0de037a258ab8e307423e6627bf7d5d

    And this is a good in-depth objective review by The Atlantic:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/an-inconvenient-time-for-an-inconvenient-sequel/534267/

    Climate sceptics have two main hate figures it seems: 1) Al Gore and 2) Dr Michael E. Mann. Instead of reading biased negative information about this new documentary, go along to a cinema and see it for yourself to make up your on mind if it is ‘an inconvenient bomb’ that is ‘tanking’.

    • I could have sworn I heard a voice, crying out in the darkness….. darkness…… darkness of the mind that just Will. Not. Lift………….

      • That’s the critic’s score. The audience have rated it 47%.

        I would expect the critic’s, most of whom work for left-leaning MSM, would rate it higher.

    • folks, you’ve got to see the humor in this post

      independent-minded readers…….should go along with the crowd….because Rotten Tomatoes says so

      • Rotten Tomatoes is in no way biased either for or against the climate change debate – it give an honest opinion from people who have watched a particular film. Don’t try to create a biased viewpoint here.

      • @ivankinsman
        Yes, because the folks at Rotten Tomatoes writing the reviews have intellects as pure as the driven snow and don’t even know the meaning of the word politics let alone political opinions of their own. /snark

        “OK, man, light up another one.”

    • Asking the NY Times about a film about global warming is about as appropriate as
      asking them to explain relativity theory. The NY Times is the rag whose “science editor”
      published so many bogus articles that were immediately shredded by the community that they moved him to the fashion desk! Michael Mann, creator of the false and misleading “hockey stick graph” used in Gore’s previous fictitious flick and AL Gore, a man of a thousand and one lies, are fully worthy of contempt – even global warmists consider them disgusting,embarrassing jerks.
      They have put forth totally inaccurate arguments against scientists who are skeptics of their doomsday pronouncements – claiming the skeptics don’t believe in man-made global warming, which is a complete lie. If the past 20 years of no significant warming doesn’t cause the doomsday boys to re-evaluate their looming armageddon, then obviously facts are not involved in their “scientific analysis.” At this point, everyone is tired of hearing their phony doomsday crap.

      • The real picture is evading you my man. Carry on living in fantasy land … the big crunch is coming and I suggest you get your supplies stored up ….

    • He he he. Nice try, troll. We can’t render an opinion on an obvious propaganda vanity project without shelling out $10-15 and wasting 2 hours of our life. If we do go and find out it is a POS, will you refund our ticket price? I thought not.
      And, of course, you site two unimpeachable sources The New York Times and The Atlantic. I guess The Nation hasn’t posted a review yet.
      As for ‘hate figures’ you left out Bill Nye, Gavin Schmidt, Bill McKibben, etc, etc. There are so many who are willing to smear their own reputations for vainglory that they will be insulted you left them off your list of martyrs.

      • An Inconvenient Truth was a real eye opener as to what is happening in terms of global warming and was a great documentary in terms of explaining in simple terms what exactly is happening in terms of global heating.

        I knew I would attract criticism for quoting the NYT and The Atlantic but these offered up valid reviews of AIS. People can judge for themselves whether to go to the cinema or not – in no sense is this new documentary a ‘bomb’….

      • So, invankinsman, you’ll have at your fingertips the multitude of predictions regarding, say, tipping points, among others that have actually come to pass. Please share.

    • Gore and Mann are decidedly public figures, and have long since deserved whatever criticism they draw.
      Gore ran for US President, remember? And was a notorious sore loser.
      Mann was the IPCC poster boy since 2000, and his infamous hockey stick makes Sir Cyril Burt seem a figure of scientific integrity.

      • People on this site like to deride Al Gore for ‘opportunism’ for what he stands for but remember he was Vice President to one of the best Democratic Presidents in the 20th century. He is not some shmuck who has latched on to global heating but has been involved in the debate for decades. Give the guy a break…

      • “Gore ran for US President, remember? And was a notorious sore loser.”

        Yeah, Gore was still claiming he had won Florida, on one of the talk shows the other night.

        The good ole USA dodge two bullets lately, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, we didn’t dodge the Obama bullet, but thankfully that was only a flesh wound and we are on our way to recovery with Dr. Trump in charge.

      • “People on this site like to deride Al Gore for ‘opportunism’ for what he stands for but remember he was Vice President to one of the best Democratic Presidents in the 20th century. He is not some shmuck who has latched on to global heating but has been involved in the debate for decades. Give the guy a break… ”

        Sorry, my friend, but many of us on this website lived through the Clinton-Gore years and know the situation intimately, and it was not what you say it was.

        Neither Gore nor Clinton deserve a break on anything. They are practiced liars who have done much harm to the U.S. and to the world. I have plenty of examples if you are interested.

    • Climate sceptics have two main hate figures it seems: 1) Al Gore and 2) Dr Michael E. Mann.

      Why are you accusing skeptics of “hating” them just because we don’t agree with them or trust them?

      Instead of reading biased negative information about this new documentary, go along to a cinema and see it for yourself to make up your on mind if it is ‘an inconvenient bomb’ that is ‘tanking’.

      Why?
      Running out of acolytes?

      • No. I just find that you just have to mention AG and MM and suddenly a huge amount of invective is spewed out against them – more personal insults than what they are representing. What makes me laugh is how many commentators accuse Al Gore of making a fortune from his CC work whereas Donald Trump – the real estate salesman from Queens – is Mr Clean, represents the working man, MAKA, will stand up for the rights of workers and all the other bulllshit associated with his persona…

    • Is your mind made up? What indisputable factoid supporting CAGW did you admire in this piece of propaganda?

      • It is a follow up on An Inconvenient Truth. I used to work as a university lecturer and always showed AIT to my students once a year. Some bought in to it but some did not. They could make up their own minds …

    • My God, could you have found a more sycophantic list of reviewers?

      ‘Objective review by the Atlantic?’
      They don’t HAVE those.
      Although someone without objectivity and who shares its similarly rigid, Progressive world view might not be able to perceive that sort of thing.

    • You’re referring to the critic’s (aka main stream media types) Rotten Tomatoes score.

      The separate viewer Rotten tomatoes score shows only 47% (of 3,676 who saw the movie) liked the movie – this for an event probably heavily on CAGW believers…even they have difficulty eating Gore’s dog-food.

  17. I was in a theater in central Florida last week to watch another film, when the trailer came on. (not even the standard “Preview” intro, it was rather like one of the commercials they run before most people get into the theater) Almost everyone (mostly adults) in the theater boo’d and catcalled the commercial. First time in a LOOOONG time that I’ve seen that response to a trailer. It was gratifying to hear.

    • And I was in a theatre in Kielce, Poland and when the trailer came on everyone (both adults and kids) in the audience stood up an applauded. I personally was overwhelmed by their response and it nearly had me bursting into tears I was so overcome with emotion. (This is a completely fake story but I hope you see my point.)

      • He didn’t have me going. The moment he wrote “Poland” I knew it was crap. The Poles are much smarter than that.

      • I should have noted that “Poland” reference, D.J. I was thrown off by the “bursting into tears” comment, which kind of confirmed my bias and caused me to take it seriously.

        You’re right about the Poles. They are smart. I saw a news article the other day about how Poland is getting ready to cut themselves free from dependence on Russian natural gas by producing a third of their needs in-country, another third they will get from Norway and the rest will come from foreign suppliers (the good ole USA).

        The Poles said the Russians need to give them a good deal on natural gas the next time the contract comes up or things might change. Trump makes a difference in many parts of the world. :)

      • Emoting. It’s what the Progressive Liberal crowd does best; in lieu of applying critical thinking skills.

      • Also what really gets me pissed us when someone introduces politics into a purely scientific discussion. It had f@## a** to do with politics so keep away from terms like progressive liberal or alt right in this debate.

  18. There is clearly a group of committed climate change acolytes who will watch anything that endorses their view of the world. The costs of production may be irrelevant – they may have been funded by Gore or some “charitable” institution.

    No different to a cartoon designed to appeal to (say) 5-8 year olds – just a small part of the cinema going audience!

    • OK, let me put it this way. Why doesn’t some global heating sceptic make a documentary that supports their viewpoint. Problem is they would find it very difficult to find enough independently-reviewed scientific evidence to justify such an endeavour. If one has been made, then please send me a link. I would be very interested to hear about how there is no issue with human-induced CO2 and in fact we can keep on increasing its output ad infinitum because it goes — where exactly?

      • Ivan, you just continue to show your ignorance, and why Universities are bringing themselves into contempt…..

      • Problem is they would find it very difficult to find enough independently-reviewed scientific evidence to justify such an endeavour. If one has been made, then please send me a link.

        No problem, happy to help.
        The Great Global Warming Swindle

        It is very well done, and the issues are well presented by prominent climate researchers. I highly recommend you check it out.
        I have long advocated that anyone who shows AIT, to also show this as a companion video. Then your audience can really decide, based on having a more complete set of facts.

      • “OK, let me put it this way. Why doesn’t some global heating sceptic make a documentary that supports their viewpoint. Problem is they would find it very difficult to find enough independently-reviewed scientific evidence to justify such an endeavour. If one has been made, then please send me a link.”

        Here you go, ivan.

        The video “Climate Hustle” found at Climatedepot.com. It refutes eveything in Al Gore’s movie.

      • TonyL I decided to do a bit of research on the film before watching it and this is what I have read – which doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence about its veracity:

        The film was publicly broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK:

        “According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4’s head of documentaries, the film was commissioned “to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide.”[6]

        And here are the reactions from scientists:

        * The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme’s broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was “a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming,” which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme’s assertion that “this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.”[23]

        * The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: “A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years.” Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4’s editorial standards, the statement says: “Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct.” It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:

        A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.[11]

        * Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist: “First, let’s deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth’s atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role…Let scepticism reign, but let’s not play games with the evidence.”[24]

        * The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, briefly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:
        Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two-day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world’s population has the best possible future.[25]

        * Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they “believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed”.[10]

        *According to the Guardian in 2007, a study published by, among others, Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory was partially inspired in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle.[26] Lockwood then had co-authored a paper about solar data from the past 40 years.[27] He found that between 1985 and 1987, the solar factors that should affect climate performed an “U-turn in every possible way”,[27] therefore 2007 cooling would have to be expected, which was not the case then.[27][28] Lockwood therefore was quoted several times as critical evidence against various claims made in the film.

        *Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan:
        “The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science… Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.” [29]

        A public forum entitled “Debunking “The Great Global Warming Swindle”” was held at the Australian National University in Canberra on 13 July 2007, at which scientists from the Australian National University, Stanford University, USA, and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies exposed what they described “as the scientific flaws and half-truths in the claims of climate change skeptics”[30]

  19. I tried posting this earlier, maybe it got caught up in moderation. I will try again.
    The movie’s financial success is secondary to its purpose. The important part was all the free air time that Gore got in the run-up to the release. He got to appear on the TV talk-fests and in glossy magazines making his case with no opposition. Only a few in the MSM made a peep about questions about the failure of his forecasts in the previous film, or the self-serving nature of both films. Even now he is able to get face time by complaining about Paramount is undermining his efforts. The only people who care about the film’s bottom line are Paramount’s accountants and shareholders. The studio big-wigs will suffer a loss or two if it’s for a good cause, which gives them much credit in Hollywood circles.

    • Paramount will make a few million on this one when it has been around the traps internationally. If the cost of making it was indeed around a million they stand to make 200% or more. Don’t think too many movies can claim that sort of % return on investment.
      And of course if Al does stand for (and becomes) president guess who will come knocking for special favors.

      • Plus the movie theaters were just for show. The real money will be when all the schools buy a blue ray of it, and it gets sold to Netflix and Amazon. Paramount will do fine even if they spent a few million more on this one – but I don’t see the extra money from the snippets.

  20. An interesting comparison, but I think it a bit inapt to compare a “political/documentary” movie with summertime popcorn muncher movies.
    It might be interesting to contrast AIS to another political/documentary from the opposite end of the spectrum, such as Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.
    After the theater run is complete, we can see how the two stack up.

    • I agree, we should compare apples to apples. However, none of D’Souza’s films received the positive media blitz that accompanied Gore’s. And, as a result, far few theaters were willing to book them. Gore’s films are gonna out score any conservative-leaning film simply because the Zeitgeist favors them.

  21. Suspect that AIS will continue to flop. The inconvenient truth is that nothing in Gore’s first movie has come true. Doubt the sequel points this out. However all but dedicated warmunists know it is so. Rising temps? Nope. Imcreased Storms? Nope. Dying polar bears? Nope. Drowning Miami? Nope. Climate refugees? Nope. Gore practicing what he preaches? Nope.

  22. “But, I think Paramount has done the math, and they realize that based on political bent, about half (or more) of the general population simply doesn’t care about Gore’s latest doom rehash, and won’t bother to attend.”

    True. Further, it is no longer ungodly expensive to do a 3,000 theater roll out. When films were silver nitrate on celluloid they were expensive to print and expensive to ship. It is all digital and neither reproduction nor shipping is a material cost. The biggest cost of a roll out is now advertising.

  23. So I went to see Dunkirk last weekend and was subjected to the preview for this propaganda piece. My amygdala was overloaded with dire feelings of fear and guilt. No wonder Al Bore’s religion is failing. You watch 5 minutes of this stuff you want to put a gun to your head. Wasn’t the world suppose to be under boiling water by now according to his first inconvenient propaganda piece? This guy is a classic case of bad casting he is just not believable.

  24. The Toronto sun has columnists who appear in WUWT due to their anti-warming columns. But their movie critic still gave this three stars out of four. I’ve been trying to figure out why ever since. And the only thing I can think of is that the reviewer only looked at the presentation and didn’t really care about the truth. After all they usually review totally fictional movies so real world facts and truth are not all that big a deal to a movie critic.

    • They have to be PC in Toronto or they’ll get scads of subscribers screaming at them. Not even 3 stars can save this trainwreck.

  25. It’s not the box office numbers that matter,what matters is school boards across the country,and elsewhere for that matter,will pay for the movie to show in every classroom and know one will be the wiser until after your kids see it.

  26. I doubt that Algore is very concerned about the numbers for theaters. It will be done with its run by the time school starts and will surely be shown in nearly every class in nearly every public school in the US. The goal is indoctrination of the kids, not education of rest of us.

    • AIS is not a “sciency” movie. It’s a lot more likely to be shown in a “current affairs” class than a science class, but why bother?

      The movie is to reassure his followers and encourage them to keep up the good fight. (Such as is was.)

  27. The box office will pick up considerably, once the Left hears about the problem. School children will be ordered to attend the movie, as will many State and local government employees. Lord knows what happens if the NEA insists that members see the fairy tale.

  28. I am enjoying the coincidence that the movie is premiering while unseasonably cool weather is dominating most of the country.

    • 8-)
      You left the “3000” out of the title.
      It won’t be long before they move the goal post out that far! 8-)

  29. Al Gore patiently explains to some lovely people of the Third World why they can nor should ever dream of living like him:

  30. Reading around, and from the comments, I get the impression they may have spent considerably more on the promotion budget than the production itself.

    That’s actually quite believable for a picture with no big league stars or expensive production costs, where everything can be faked with CGI (just like climate science itself). Another movie of the same genre, and same ultimate fate, Ghostbusters rebooted, is estimated to have spent hundreds of millions on promotion to little effect.

  31. Gore’s con game was based on a gamble that naturally the naturally occuring warm period of the 1980s to mid 1990s would continue – giving him a “smoke screen” for his hoax. But mother nature refused to cooperate and August temps in the U.S. are cooler than normal right in time for this stinker to debut. There is karma for con men like Al Gore, Michael Mann et al. I love it!

  32. My recollection of the movie distribution business is that theater owners (including chains) choose which movies that are ‘in distribution’ they want to take – – and they choose the ones they think/know their local audiences will want to see. There’s pushing and shoving at the margins between screen-owners and distributors who want their movies on screens vs. other producers’ movies, but the screen owners have a lot of power. For example (I was told) the Cannonball Run movies with Burt Reynolds would be shown all through the South, but not, say, Annie Hall. And the reverse was true for, say, Manhattan and Boston. (I know, I’m dating myself.) But if it’s still this way then imagine screen owners in most of the country being pressured to show Gore’s lunatic sequel! The only ones who’d take it would be diehard warmists or screen-owners who know their local audience is made up of warmists. I’m surprised they found 180 to even take it and I bet almost all of them were in New York, San Francisco, Boston and LA…..

  33. Peter

    Wow; I had some serious vertigo there for a second – you were talking chick-flicks (Annie Hall) and said you were dating yourself. I’m ok now.

  34. Is the reported dollar gross per theater an actual number or a guesstimate? Every other movie reports the gross to the nearest dollar, but the Gore movie gross is rounded to the nearest thousand. This makes me wonder if the accounting is as dubious as the subject matter.

    Anyone know how the data on per theater gross are acquired? Could this value be hoaxed?

  35. Is the reported dollar gross per theater an actual number or a guesstimate?

    The “actual” number is probably adjusted upward. No, no, I got that wrong — dollar numbers for other movies are adjusted downwards to make Gore’s number look greater.

  36. A partially government funded TV station in Australia, SBS, dedicated 5min of an hour evening news on promoting the film. No mention of any news like Gore spends the equivalent energy of 6 family homes to heat his home.

  37. “The science is settled” – St. Algore the Large of the Church of Globull Warming.
    SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
    1) The scientific method REQUIRES skepticism
    2) The scientific method DEMANDS that when a hypothesis is proposed, ALL SUPPORTING DATA is submitted for review by interested parties.
    3) SKEPTICS are invited to investigate ALL of the data, and ALL of the work that led to the conclusion, and allowed to poke holes in the theory WITHOUT INTERVENTION… Physicists are still debating Einstein’s work.

    Hide the Decline – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

    “Only a very weak idea demands that it must be protected from any criticism” The Globull Warming “idea is so weak it cannot be subjected to the normal vigorous debate of free society.” – Mark Steyn

Comments are closed.