Thursday, August 5, 2021
Home Special Reports The Reviews Are in! 'Climate Hustle' is 'the most dangerous documentary of...

The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

-

May 2 – One Night Only – 7pm – Find theatre near you and buy tickets online at www.ClimateHustle.com

Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’
 – Leading climate activists are warning moviegoers to shun the May 2nd nationwide one-day theater screening of “Climate Hustle,” a new film debunking climate alarmism and its big government solutions. Bill Nye (not a real “science guy,” FYI), who entertains the idea of throwing climate skeptics in the slammer, warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world: “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it – for daring to dispute climate alarmism. “Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.

Review: ‘Climate Hustle is the most dangerous documentary of the year’ – ‘Brutally effective’ – ‘It’s hard not to laugh’ – Christian Toto of Hollywood In Toto: ‘Climate Hustle’ is just the tonic the global warming debate needs’

MEDIA DECLARES WAR ON ‘CLIMATE HUSTLE’ Film – ‘The press already is working overtime to debunk its narrative’

Watch: Morano in Tux on TV for DC Film Premiere – Teases Mystery Animal that Was Mascot for both Cooling & Warming fears – Bill Nye’s not the only one who can wear a bow tie!

Review: Climate Hustle is a smart, energetic global warming documentary – ‘The film lays waste to Gore’s thoroughly debunked ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ – Thomas Richard – Environmental Examiner review of ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘Morano smartly lets the environmental bullies do the talking, through clips, headlines, ads and promotional videos.’

New York Times on ‘Climate Hustle’s’ Morano: ‘He has risen to be the most savvy media manipulator of the climate skeptic crowd’ – Morano ‘pretty much chewed up Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN with Piers Morgan a couple years ago.’

Watch: Fox features ‘Climate Hustle’: Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are profiled in Climate Hustle’ – Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are now climate change skeptics. They are profiled in a new film. It’s called Climate Hustle.’

92 COMMENTS

      • View my other post which I am sure you did already! Feb 12, 2016 Government Science Monopoly

        Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.

      • The 97% consensus is a sham. If you look at the studies by Dorran and Zimmerman (2008) and Cook et al (2013), you would find that they reviewed 15,000 abstract papers between them. From that review they found 118 abstracts that agreed with their hypothesis about global warming/climate change. 118 / 15,000 does not equal 97% – only 0.3%.

        • Oh dear. Another denier that can’t discern fiction from fact.
          You are making quite a claim there, big boy. Care to back it up with some evidence?
          What you need to do is cite a published peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your points that the Cook et al (2013) has been falsified (aka it’s 0.3% consensus, and not 97%).
          Your pathetic claims do not cover Dorran & Zimmerman; it had nothing to do with the 15,000 abstract papers that Cook et al used. Your dishonesty is noted.

          Secondly, you also need to falsify a) Oreskes 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, b) Naomi Oreskes, 2007 “The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?”, c) Doran and Zimmerman 2009 “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” , d) Anderegg tal 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change” Again, all these papers come to the same 97% consensus conclusion. You need to show each one of them as incorrect using your own published peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your points that the each of the four papers have been falsified (aka it’s 0.3% consensus, and not 97%).

          In addition to this, there is no scientific body of national or international standing that dissent from anthropocentric climate change (ACC). None, zip, zero, null. Don’t you think these scientific ‘institutions’ would walk away from the consensus if it is so obviously false as you claim? You need to list me any scientific body of national or international standing that dissent from anthropocentric climate change (ACC). Can you do this?

          If you can’t do these three things listed above , then you have no valid argument for rejecting the ACC consensus.

          Climate change science is not strong because of the 97% consensus. The consensus is strong because of the falsifiable evidence obtained by the climate change science.

          This is how the Cook paper was done. Very different to what your deniers claim:
          In the Cook et al (2013) study 8,500 scientists were emailed to ask them to self rate their papers. This resulted in 1,200 scientists rating the level of endorsement of their own climate papers, with 2,142 of their papers receiving a self-rating. Of these papers 97.2% affirmed ACC. The figure arrived at by Cook et al rating 11,944 abstracts was 97.1%. Pretty close eh? I started to look at the objections raised by those who felt they’d been misrepresented in Cook at al (2013). There was Willie Soon who was 3rd author on a paper criticizing studies forecasting polar bear populations. It was classed by Cook et al (2013) as “no position on ACC” but Soon thought it should be rated as rejecting ACC. I read the abstract and found that it criticizes assumptions and methods used by some of the researchers but neither endorses nor rejects ACC. So the rating is correct. Then there was Richard Tol. Despite his many criticisms of the paper even Tol had to admit on looking at the self rating data that “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.” It is inevitable that the denier lobby would challenge ACC consensus studies with every sort of objection imaginable. It’s what they do. But the data consistently come up with a figure of ~97% of publishing climatologists accepting ACC. Now this is either because the world’s climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to destroy capitalism, our freedom etc, or because they are honestly dealing with the evidence and concluding that ACC is not false.

          Prediction: You will not evidence your claims, you will not do these three things because we both know that you can’t falsify the consensus, nor the science. Your quick departure will now follow given that you have some homework to do. Are you happy with that?

          • So says the certifiably insane “John, the Climate TROLL”. A “John” is just another of those idiots who have prostituted themselves to the Agenda driven faux “science” of MANMADE Global Climate Change.

            • Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’

              Your reasoning failed you, and that is why you now resort to insults. Thank you for admitting that you can’t falsify ACC.

              So much for your claim that the 97% consensus is false.
              It must be hard for you going through life always being wrong. How has that worked out for you so far?

              I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

                    • Write me when you have a url link to your published peer-reviewed scientific journal that can falsify ‘dangerous’ ACC. Else, don’t bother.

                    • Well then class, here’s one that applies directly to “John”, and describes him, and his ilk for what they are: Pernicious. As in “John” is a pernicious liar.

                    • “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – George Carlin

                      I have stopped arguing with you, long ago. It was never a quarrel either! I merely refuse to go down to your level and to be beaten by your troll experience.

                    • That’s really rich! You accuse me of being a troll! What color is that kettle you live in? Dang but you’re stupid.

                    • The only “assertion” that counts, here, is the one concerning the wadded up panties that you are wearing.

                    • You want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge and intellectual capacity.

                    • Either you are one of the most sophisticated trolls I have ever encountered on Disqus, or I owe you thanks for so eloquently deconstructing the points made by your fellow climate change science deniers.

                      Which one you rather be??

                    • I might answer your ridiculous assertion, if you learn how to construct a complete sentence.

                    • I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit.
                      I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

  1. Feb 12, 2016 Government Science Monopoly

    Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.

    https://youtu.be/F-fXj-ANWRk

    • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc22ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc22:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc22……….

        • If you claim to not be related to polar bears then you reject Common Decent as per the scientific theory of evolution.

          And I already know you reject the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change as well.

          It now seems you also have no idea that prove belongs to mathematics and mathematics alone. There is no such thing as scientific proof, nor does science prove or disprove anything. Look at math for proof using binary final prove/disprove.

          There is a well known phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks seem to be attracted to cranky idea just like magnets.

          Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

          • You seem to be well acquainted with the “crank” that lives in your mirror. What is “Common Decent”? Is that some moral concept?
            Man made “Global” warming, or cooling, is totally ludicrous unless you’re Al Gore and stand to make a lot of money scamming gullible people like you.
            Here’s a “crank theory” that I fully disbelieve: “John has two functioning brain cells”.

            • I asked if there is a crank theory that you do not believe in. I did not ask you to repeat your crank theories (you claimed that Common decent and anthropogenic warming is false) again. And no, “John has two functioning brain cells” is not a crank theory, but your disbelief in it is. Are you new to reality?

              Pay attention:
              There is a well known phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks seem to be attracted to cranky idea just like magnets.

              Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

              • And, you stupid fùckhèàd you just used the wrong word again. Look up “descent” and “decent”, you stupid fùckhèàd. I don’t have any “crank” theories. I’ll leave those to you, stupid fùckhèàd.

                • You did not answer my question.
                  Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

                  I don’t have any “crank” theories. I’ll leave those to you, stupid fùckhèàd.

                  So, you accept that anthropogenic climate change is not false?
                  So, you admit that you are related to the polar bear?
                  So, you agree that your use of ‘proof, prove, disprove’ is fallacious?

                  Insults and abuse are fine, but only as long as it is accompanied by sensible responses to my questions. If your reply has nothing besides invective, libel and false claims (i.e. no answers), then it will be pointed out.

                  Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                    • Thank you for living up to my prediction.

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, please live up to my prediction again, you are predictable. I command you, do it again.

                    • You are basically repeating yourself, over and over. That’s a sure sign of dementia. How very sad for you, it’s incurable.

                    • There you go, you lived up to my prediction again.

                      Does it make you happy or angry to repeat the same mistake over and over again?

                      “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – George Carlin
                      I have stopped arguing with you, long ago. It was never a quarrel either! I merely refuse to go down to your level and to be beaten by your troll experience.

                      Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will demonstrate how your reasoning fails, how you think that your weak insults can triumph science. Are you happy with that?

                      Do it again, please live up to my prediction again, you are predictable. I command you, do it again.

                    • On top, in the superior position? Are you maybe just a little bit weirder than we all thought you might be?

                    • You can’t convince a climate denier of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.

                    • What’s a “climate” denier worth, these days? Is that denier pure, or alloyed silver? Is the denier Al Gore’s method of payment for his faux scientists?

                      How’s about a climate warming denier, or maybe a climate cooling denier? Since the climate IS cooling, that would indicate that those who are falsely advocating for climate warming are the ones who are in denial.

                    • You claim:

                      Since the climate IS cooling,

                      So much for your Monckton hero

                      I wrote: “Yes, he accepts natural climate change, but rejects anthropogenic climate chnage (ACC).”

                      You replied: Nope again. I now graduate you from stupid to dumbass.

                      How embarrassing for you! You claim that your hero supports a warming earth, and no you go against that!

                      What makes it worse for you is that even Monckton, disagrees with you. He accepts your thet the earth is warming up! David Legates was a co-author of a 2015 study published by the Chinese Science Bulletin that used a simple climate model predicting an overall trend of approximately 1.0 C warming for the 2000 to 2100 period, drawing upon the historical record of approximately 0.34 C warming from 1990 to 2014. The study’s authors, a team made up of David Legates with Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. William M. Briggs, and Christopher Monckton, stated that they agreed with the IPCC’s findings of a warming earth. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2

                      Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

                      BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

                      CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

                      NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

                      UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

                      NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

                      and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

                      Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 2000 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

                      What now, we both know that you are in a corner now. And we both know that you will not check the evidence, not even from your own camp!

                      You can’t convince a climate denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.

                    • A “Climate denier” would be one who denies that “climate” exists. Maybe you need to go back to basic English classes.
                      And …. Just who is this fictional “hero” of mine? Be sure to quote me exactly.
                      This supposed “corner” of mine is secure, your’s is in jeopardy of being exposed for the pernicious eco-crank scam that it is.

                    • Do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements.

                      Try searching Google or Bing for ‘climate denier’. You will be surprised with what you come up with.

                      You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:

                      1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method

                      2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief

                      3) Acceptance: You always knew it was so.

                      Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.

                      Your denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:

                      1.1. Appeal to authority.

                      You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

                      1.2. Appeal on consequences

                      You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.

                      1.3. Circular Reasoning

                      You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.

                      I can’t change you, only you can do that. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance you are in. It’s your job to understand it; I can’t do your homework for you.

                      What makes you think this is sport where there are 2 sides of equal authority? When I hear rubbish such as what you are preaching then I understand the conundrum: 1) Do I engage and debunk every single false claims from you? The risk with that is that it could be perceived that there is some legitimacy in his claims and that it’s worth my time. 2) Do I not engage to debunk every single false claim from you? The risk with that is that it could suggest that your claims can’t be debunked and is therefore not false. And here is the thing; scientists are also not required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. This is quite common thanks in part to people like you and news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. I suspect people like you know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. You will exploit this public misconception to the max because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, thanks to the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why people like you are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      How do you get yourself to stage 2: Anger?

                      Pathetic.

                    • If I could reason with you, then you would not be in denial.

                      “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.” –Winston Churchill

                    • Churchill made the fallacious assumption that an uneducated man could even read. How do those wadded up panties of yours feel?

                    • “Climate science isn’t strong because of the consensus; the consensus is strong because of science” — Peter Gleick

                    • And here I thought you preferred 69. Isn’t that what you “transgendered” folks do in those special rest room facilities? How are those panties feeling?

                    • I am gay transgender, black, female, Muslim, and much smarter than you.

                      Your god does not exist, btw.

                    • An opening of a post is extremely important. It either grabs you to read more, or signals you to stop. Yours were of the latter. I did not read past the first sentence.

                      If you want a dialog with me, then you have to adhere to the considerations I set-out to you in my previous post. These were not my conditions, but the normal decent way a discussions runs.

                    • It’s indecent for people to be so gullible as to be taken in by you “Warming” nuts. I’m not here for any dialog, I’m here solely to antagonize and ridicule you. And … It’s working beyond my expectations.

                    • Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

                      BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

                      CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

                      NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

                      UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

                      NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

                      and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

                      Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

                    • First thing, before you call me stupid, reread your post. I told you before “Check the databases yourself…satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.”. So you chose not to, instead you ask me to educate you – and you call me stupid!

                      Denialism: The denial of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories.

                      That is such an admission from you.

                      And no, I don’t think I’m smarter than the people who actually study the climate. That’s your department, remember? Yet, you admit that you are in denial, that you refuse to check the facts yourself, yet you call me stupid.

                      Pathetic.

                    • Wow! Those wadded up panties are really causing you grief, aren’t they? Maybe you should put on a fresh pair, one’s not so clogged up with “warming” crap.

                    • ‘Wise men speak when they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something’ – Plato.

                    • So, are you wearing Plato’s panties? Applied to you, they’re obviously more wadded up and much tighter than your own.

                    • The unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me a fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning that you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does not agree with your illogical anthropogenic climate change denialism.

                      Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to deny logic when it goes against their denialism. But this ought to give you a pause for serious thought if you are serious about the foundations of your denial.

                      The irony is that the manufactured denialism industry has invaded your critical faculties. Their pseudoscience is the premier in your museum of mistakes and they are using your broken reason filter to cloud your cognitive functions.

                      You deliberately did not answer my question because you thought there was a chance that I would not call you on your emotional masturbation. All that in a vain attempt to give your self esteem a small boost.

                      You are dismissed. I have no further use for you. Thanks for your assistance.

                    • The only thing illogical here is your inability to accept that I’m here just to harass you.

                    • Did you just misspell “ow”? Those panties are starting to be really painful, aren’t they?

                    • Yep, and you’ve taken the bait, hook line and sinker, every time. But then, what more could be expected from a “climate change” shill?
                      How’re those wadded up, pink panties fitting today?

                    • “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – George Carlin

                      I have stopped arguing with you, long ago. It was never a quarrel either! I merely refuse to go down to your level and to be beaten by your troll experience.

                    • Can’t you come up with a new spurious complaint? Or do you just keep recycling the old ones?

                      Actually, science is based on evidence. When the accumulated evidence clearly leads to a particular conclusion, a consensus of those in the field emerges. Consensus does not mean unanimity. Nor does it include those who, sensing a threat from a particular scientific finding to their livelihood or ideology, create a pseudo-science to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt about the legitimate science. We see it with evolution, we saw it with smoking and health, and we’re now seeing it with anthropogenic climate change.

                    • Recycling is bad? “Global warming” is pseudo-science, thanks for illustrating the motives of those who perpetrate the lie.

                    • You should only be apologizing to your parents for allowing you to wear your mommies wadded up, tight pink panties.

          • John I know your mom ****ed a polar bear but that doesn’t mean the rest of us are related to them. You will believe any idiotic “theory” spewed by academia because you are a mentally enslaved moron who cannot fathom that academia is a special interest and promotes political agendas. Yes, I reject “common descent”, because it is not scientific at all.

  2. This movie appears to have had an intended audience of people who were already “in the know” of the producers take on climate change. Much of the “humor” was only understood by people already aware of the misconceptions regarding the topic. This was evidenced by the opening statement regarding carbon credits. While I found out the concept behind carbon credits after the movie was over, this could have been included in the movie to lend credibility to several of the ideas touched on. It explains how third world countries would be harmed and how this further lends to the idea of a one world government. The final piece that really brought down the likelihood of converting a believer in climate change to a person who discusses the science behind the theory was the inclusion of Sarah Palin in the panel discussion. While I believe her to be a smart, well educated person, her ability to present information in a manner that is clear and easy to follow is definitely lacking. I counted in her closing statement “um’s” and “ugh’s” 6 times. Not to mention she brings as much credibility to the discussion as Bill Nye does to the opposite side. Overall, it was a good idea, it just wasn’t as powerful as it could have been.

  3. Please, Please, Please make this documentary film available on Amazon or Netflix, and/or make some DVDs available for purchase. I know a lot of people like myself who were unable to make the one-night-only cinema engagement on May 2 but who really want to see it. I feel pretty sure that people would pay well for the DVD or for an Amazon viewing.

  4. Global Hoaxing: Throwing Money down a bottomless pit

    1.5 Trillion a year. That’s $1,500,000,000,000 of American Tax dollars that goes to combat ..whatever the left it’s called this week:
    1. Polar Vortex
    2. Global Warming
    3. Global Cooling
    4. Global Climate Change
    5. Climate Change
    -whatever they can make up.

    Where does this money go? Have you wondered?

    Is it going to fix solar panels and reduce all of our energy costs? Nope, haven’t seen one cent go to this.

    Is it going to hydroelectric dams? Nope, haven’t seen a cent nor even a rumor of this.

    Is it going for more research? Of course not, there is only so much you can falsify.

    Nuclear Energy? Not a cent.

    Is it going to make us more aware of the existence? Perhaps, Maybe 10 million a year. That still leaves $1, 490,000,000,000

    Where is this huge, monumental amount going? Any ideas? Huge money net to stop glaciers? Corks for cow butts to stop them passing gas?(one of the things they say is the biggest reason for global…whatever and, in fact, Governor Jerry Brown of CA has just started regulating…yes, he’s got us legislating cow flatulence)

    Where is this massive war chest with 1,490,000,000,000 x at least 10 years? I don’t care if it’s the Chinese or Russian or the Bushman of the Serengheti(sp), somebody tell me where all this money is?

    In 1970, Libtard experts claimed we’d all be starved to death by the end of the 80’s. How many people have you seen die of starvation lately?

    In the mid 70’s, these same libtard experts predicted we’d all have a nuclear ice age or a global ice age…So why am I not a popsickle?

    Global Warming libtard experts predicted most of our coastal cities would be underwater by about 10 years ago.. So are they all drowning at this point?

    SO, to sum up, nothing they have predicted to have happened by now has happened. Absolutely nothing. Trillions have been spent and not one energy saving thing has been accomplished or even started. A petition by over 33 THOUSAND scientists have stated that the entire thing is a hoax. Remember this when you elect yet another jackoff libtard to office.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

15 New 2017 Papers: Scientists Abandoning Claims Of Dominant Man-Made Influence On Arctic Climate

By Kenneth Richard on 15. May 2017 Natural Forcing Of Arctic Climate  Increasingly Affirmed By Scientists Gajewski, 2015 Three years ago a cogent paper was published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature that...

Legislate the climate you want! Study: Laws to tackle climate change exceed 1,200 worldwide

OSLO (Reuters) - Nations around the world have adopted more than 1,200 laws to curb climate change, up from about 60 two decades ago,...

A fool’s errand: Al Gore’s $15 trillion carbon tax to ‘re-engineer humanity’ to save us from global warming

by Fred Palmer | May 9, 2017, 5:00 AM Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of...