Reviews are in! Skeptic Morano as villain in warmist film is ‘terrifyingly impressive, sadistic’ – ‘The doc’s most engaging character’ – ‘A magnificent antihero, a cheery, chatty prevaricator’ – ‘Slick’ – ‘Scary’ – ‘A loathsome mercenary’ – ‘Sleazy spin doctor’

Watch ‘Merchants of Doubt’ Trailer here: 

Morano featured as villain in new warmist documentary: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ – Marc Morano in warmist film: ‘I am not a scientist, although I do occasionally play one on TV — Ok — Hell, more than occasionally.’ – ‘We (skeptics) the negative force, we are just trying to stop stuff.’

[Note: For those not interested in attempted smear job on global warming skeptics, Hollywood has the answer. See ‘Kingsman’ instead! See: The movie ‘Kingsman’: ‘The most subversive anti-AGW movie’ – ‘This movie presents in Technicolor the awful nature of alarmists; they are elitist, narcissistic and misanthropic. And riddled in hypocrisy’]

Producer of new Oreskes Warmist film: ‘My goal was to make people angry that they are being lied to’ – Morano featured as villain in new warmist film

NYT: Morano exemplifies ‘slickness, grandiosity & charm’ – New York Times: ‘Morano is a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism’ – NYT film review of warmist documentary ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘Public relations, in contrast, is built on slickness, grandiosity and charm. These traits are exemplified by Marc Morano, a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism and currently the executive director of the website Climate Depot. One of the film’s conceits is that the actions of Mr. Morano and his colleagues can be con games and magic tricks.’

Newspaper calls Marc Morano ‘terrifyingly impressive’ and ‘sadistic’ – Daily Californian’s film review of ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘Marc Morano is one of the terrifyingly, impressive and yet sadistic experts with this skill set. His statements add shock and give viewers a hard-hitting wakeup call’

Morano featured in Newsweek Mag: Warmist filmmaker: ‘I think Morano’s very funny, he’s very smart’ – Climate Depot featured as villain in new warmist Oreskes film

Mag. reviews ‘Merchants of Doubt’ – Calls Morano ‘a grinning-skull nihilist LulzSec member’ – Calls Climate Depot ‘leading site for climate change skeptics’ – Excerpt: Morano is ‘a grinning-skull nihilist LulzSec member, hacking reality for the LOLs—a mirror-world Yes Man who has decided there’s more to be gained in being an actual yes man.’ – ‘Morano, who ascended from accosting celebrities outside the men’s room for Rush Limbaugh’s TV show in the mid-1990s to debating Bill Nye on global warming on CNN in 2012, seems to relish revealing the secrets to his greatest illusions.

Warmist review of Merchants Of Doubt criticizes film for being ‘swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads’ like Morano

Marc Morano was great in the film. It flopped anyway.

‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer seeks media ban on skeptics: ‘Tell news editors: Stop booking climate deniers!’

San Francisco Chronicle Calls Climate Depot’s Morano ‘shifty’, ‘slick’, & ‘scary’ – San Francisco Chronicle on ‘Merchants of Doubt’ film: ‘Much more powerful are the moments like the interview with climate change ‘expert’ Marc Morano, who luxuriates in his shifty tactics and misdirection plays. To him, it’s all fun and games — he’s both slick and scary.’

Salon Mag. calls Morano ‘a loathsome mercenary’ – ‘Driven by perverse conviction…to jam his thumb into the eye of liberal orthodoxy’

Film Review: Morano is ‘the documentary’s most engaging character’ – One of ‘sleazy spin doctors who will stop at nothing to obscure the truth’ – ‘Merchants of Doubt’ – The documentary’s most engaging character, after all, is self-described creator of chaos Marc Morano, who runs the climate denial site ClimateDepot and who frequently appears as an “expert” on network news. (“I am not a scientist, although I do play one on TV,” he explains.)

LA Weekly review: Warmist film features ‘a magnificent antihero in Marc Morano, a cheery, chatty prevaricator’ – LA Weekly review of ‘Merchants of Doubt’: [Producer Robby] Kenner finds a magnificent antihero in Marc Morano, a cheery, chatty prevaricator who has made a mint by muddying water. His job is to promote skepticism of a truth that even Skeptic magazine believes in, and since Morano’s cocksure, and good at yelling on TV, he steamrolls over climate scientists on cable despite his lack of expertise. In interviews, he’s disarmingly guileless…The film and Morano agree on one thing: All that the deniers of climate change have to do to succeed is reduce the country’s certainty. They’ve been wildly successful.’

NY Post film review features Morano as a ‘shifty pundit’– ‘Merchants of Doubt’ doc pulls curtain back on shifty pundits’ – ‘One oft-quoted “climate change skeptic,” Marc Morano, admits in the film, ‘I’m not a scientist, but I do play one on TV occasionally…hell, more than occasionally.’

Warmist producer of Oreskes film: ‘Morano was very funny, very charming, and I think does great damage, but he was honest’ – San Fran Chronicle: Marc Morano, whose job it is to rebut climate change, is not only candid but also humorous. Kenner credits him with helping to set the tone of the film. “Morano was really frank,” he says. “That was a shocking interview. Any time I asked him a hard question, he was far from being insulted. Nothing could scare him. He was very funny, very charming, and I think does great damage, but he was honest.”

Watch: Morano featured as villain in new warmist documentary: ‘Merchants of Doubt’

Review: Warmist film features ‘a semi-affectionate portrait of professional attack dog Marc Morano’ – Review of ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘The totally amoral Morano, who more or less admits that he’s only in it for the thrill of the game. There’s a reason folks like Singer and Morano are able to affect public policy with specious data, and it’s because they’re good at playing characters and cracking self-deprecating jokes and generally being interesting on camera, and real climate scientists aren’t.’

Warmist thinks Morano is both ‘a talking bobble head for cable news’ and a ‘little man behind the curtain’?! – Morano is one of the ‘shills for the fossil fuel-industry’ – ‘The documentary’s interview with Morano reveals that he learned many of his tricks from door-to-door sales, including the need to keep it simple so that people can fill in the blanks with their pre-existing biases. Morano’s biggest piece of advice is that the best way to attack science is to attack individuals.’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips the ‘bankruptcy of the ‘Merchants of Doubt’ meme – ‘Morano is actually quite broadly knowledgeable about climate science and the associated politics’ – Curry on ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘Censorship and propaganda; lets call a spade a spade.’ – Curry: ‘I’ve met Marc Morano a number of times. He is actually quite broadly knowledgeable about climate science and the associated politics.  He is the one ‘doubter’ in this whole piece that actually has some influence in the current climate debate.’  – ‘And coming sometime next fall (I think; no release date set) is Marc Morano’s film Climate Hustle; check out the trailer.  Seems to more entertaining anyways than ‘Merchants of Doubt.’

Flashback: German Mag does wacko profile of Climate Depot! Morano the Godfather?! German Die Zeit declares: Doubt Being Fanned Worldwide By Climate Godfather Marc Morano

Godfather Morano plays villain in movie – ‘No movie is complete without a good villain, and Morano is good, because he is fearless and committed. I was impressed last week with the Mel Gibson villain role in The Expendables. Gibson has that spark of impetuosity, fearlessness and confidence that Morano displays–you just know when presented with a choice–Morano will ACT WITH VIGOR, as Yogi said–when you come to a fork in the road, take it. Morano will take BOTH CHOICES AND THEN DOUBLE BACK AND DO IT AGAIN.’

Film Review of Warmist film Merchants of Doubt says Climate Depot’s Morano is ‘proudly sleazy’ in ‘discrediting the science’ – Producer ‘Robert Kenner’s polished and deftly argued film finds compelling subjects on both sides of the fence, from the proudly sleazy Marc Morano, who boasts of his underhanded tactics to discredit the science.’

‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer Robert Kenner on Morano : ‘Marc was not thin-skinned. If I asked a tough question, he’d give a tougher answer’

‘Morano seems to be the most aggressive, bullying the scientists he debates’ – Morano stars as villain in new warmist doc ‘Merchants of Doubt’ –

Sony Classics Grabs Docu ‘Merchants Of Doubt’ About Professional Climate-Change Skeptics – Morano featured as part of ‘a secretive group of charismatic pundits-for-hire who present themselves in the media as scientific authorities – yet have the contrary aim of spreading maximum confusion’

‘The Marx Brothers’: Director Robby Kenner of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is’ little brother of 1960s radical leftist Martin Kenner’ – Naomi Oreskes warned many skeptics ‘see environmentalists as creeping communists. They see them as reds under the bed. They call them watermelons — you know, green on the outside, red on the inside. And they worry that environmental regulation will be the slippery slope to socialism.’

‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer seeks media ban on skeptics: ‘Tell news editors: Stop booking climate deniers!’

Skeptic responds to ‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer’s Call to ban skeptics from TV – ‘Surely the best way to defeat a bad scientific argument is to engage with it and show how it is in error. Denying people free speech in the media only fuels the flames.’

Early returns: Warmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’ struggling at box office – Heartland friend Marc Morano won the “Best Reading of Emails While Traveling in a Car in a Crummy Documentary” Prize at the Sundance Film Festival.

WashPost Film Critic Applauds Film Charging Climate ‘Deniers’ Just Like Tobacco Lobbyists

Morano responds: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Rips ‘Big Climate’ for having ‘similarities’ with ‘Big Tobacco’ & ‘Big NFL’ – Pielke Jr. specifically linked UN IPCC and Michael Mann’s tactics to ‘Big Tobacco’ and ‘Big NFL’

Naomi Oreskes, THE Merchant of Doubt herself, uses tactics of the tobacco lobby – ‘Oreskes wrote an entire book designed to denigrate scientists based on tenuous links on unrelated topics with 20 year old documents. She is The Merchant of Doubt — it’s what she sells — “doubts” about the motivation of skeptical scientists. Her fantasies about skeptics using tobacco tactics is pure psychological projection…In a science debate about the climate, the only things that matter are evidence and reasoning about the climate. Those who can’t point out flaws in the science debate launch personal attacks from the gutter instead.’

Open Letter: Warmist Oreskes ‘Merchants of Doubt’ may face ‘potential major legal entanglement?’

Merchants of ‘smear’ movie slanders eminent Physicist Dr. Fred Singer – Singer Fires Back! – Dr. Singer: ‘I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail.’ – ‘Oreskes book “Merchants of Doubt” contains a number of serious scientific errors; also, it is not in accordance with the kind of scholarship expected from an academic historian.  Instead of primary sources, she relies on secondary and even tertiary sources who have obvious, demonstrated agenda.’

Marshall Institute Rebuts Oreskes Silly New Book: ‘A Critique of Merchants of Doubt’

Report: ‘Merchants of Smear’ – Debunks claims that skeptics are ‘paid by industry to manufacture doubt about’ climate change

Warmist Naomi Oreskes warns of the mass extinction of household pets


Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ in a nutshell: ‘How a 90 yr-old man and a few dead friends fool the stupid American public, end of civilization results.’

Related Link: 

Flashback: Newspaper Credits ‘Celebrity skeptic’ Morano with Fueling Growing Climate Skepticism: ‘Morano is one of the main leaders of the new breed of climate skeptics’


532 Responses

  1. When you are losing factually, start playing the ad hominem card. Make “fact-based” movies to appeal to the crowd who thinks CSI is actually real science. In other words, if you can’t convince them with made-up “evidence” confuse them with bullsh!t. Spread some of those carbon scheme billions around to the Hollywood propagandists.

    Meanwhile, the leading proponents of AGW still live their lavish lifestyles off the largesse of “man-made global warming”.


        1. A prime example of Liberal global warming hypocrisy is Richard Branson. Owner of Virgin Atlantic a very staunch global warming enthusiast… Tells everyone they need to cut their carbon footprint while his Airline and space quest program earns Billions of dollars spewing a carbon footprint the size of Texas (or bigger)…

        2. A prime example of Liberal global warming hypocrisy is Richard Branson. Owner of Virgin Atlantic a very staunch global warming enthusiast… Tells everyone they need to cut their carbon footprint while his Airline and space quest program earns Billions of dollars spewing a carbon footprint the size of Texas (or bigger)…

          1. Like this?

            “Greene (his name), who flew his wife, children and two nannies on a private jet plane to Davos for the week,…

            “America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence,”

            1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos to Discuss Global Warming:

          2. Why don’t you people understand that thanks to global warming the unicorns are dying off. Also because of global warming the only source of nutrition for the unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust are disappearing. It’s racist if we don’t save the unicorns. Thank Allah for our green warrior president and his crack team of climate scientists like Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio, George Soros and John Kerry. They understand the importance of saving the unicorns.

                  1. And in other news….. Just one week after we identified who Elvis is. His daughter had to cancel her 100 million dollar Vegas gig……. Google this…… Wellaware1 / Elvis.

          3. Well the words liberal and hypocrisy overlap in terms of definition. Liberalism means always having to say you’re sorry. That is you (me and you and the public at large)…..but of course, never the elites.

          4. Yeah. The warmists are a bunch of lying hypocrites. If they aren’t lying, then they are just gullible, like the tinfoil hats on the far right.
            But at least the tinfoils put their prepper money where their mouth is.
            The warmist carry on as if they don’t believe one word of their own schpiel.
            That’s the tell of their own stupidity. And like all stupid people – they think everyone else is just as stupid as they are.

            1. The US debt is now greater than all the money that exists in the world. You don’t think that is going to collapse? Preppers make more sense than kazoos like you, with your head so far up your butt you can’t see what’s going on.

              1. So? My parents were raised during the depression. They said it wasn’t the end of the world.
                Me thinks your tinfoil hat is a couple notches too tight.
                Enjoy all those MREs.

                1. MREs suck and are not sustainable; I have a garden, chickens and a fishing pond, all of which ARE sustainable. Enjoy your ATM card when it quits working. I’ll be thinking of you starving Kazoos while I eat as I always have.

                    1. Typical Lib: Demanding something that someone else has worked for. In a survival situation I will defend my food and water with your life!

                    2. Oh! So you have ammo too? Cool!
                      You’ll be a regular Walmart of dystopia! You better pile up a few more sandbags & move your chickens inside with you.
                      Just in case you can’t kill me in my armor plated mad max buggy.

          1. Yeah what ever happened to the RICO statutes? Seems that some enterprising legal types could really take that and run with it during this criminal administration. Not to be confused with any previous criminal administrations, lol.

        3. Current global warming data from the last 30 years exposes the fraud of Gore and his Mafia type friends. This pudgy faced, sweaty, charlatan should shut down his fraud and spend the dollars that he’s swindled in the name of carbon credits. The only other choice is firing squad, Al.

        4. We know global warming, if it even exists is not man made. In any event the majority loves it and will never pay into climate change. Because, it sure beats an ice-age.!.!

        5. Fraudulent behavior has been practiced by mankind since he acquired knowledge of good and evil. It is inundated with lies and deception, with Satan as its master, and his minions are attempting to control the power, people, and wealth of the world, but they will ultimately fail, along with their master, but the time and culmination of their demise remains imperceptible, even though it is standing at the door.

      1. “Slick” “Scary” “Sleazy” “terrifyingly impressive, sadistic” “A loathsome mercenary” “spin doctor”— All describe Gore perfectly. Might also add crook, swindler and liar.

          1. Hey Don’t insult any bores. I’d much rather hang out with a feral pig, than hear a big fat entitled lilb-fascist political pig try to enslave me. At least there are some things about the feral pig that I still respect.

    2. Speaking of really scary films. “The United Kingdom High Court has ruled that the book “An Inconvenient
      Truth” (by Al Gore) to be propaganda and described as irredeemable,
      containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush” There
      you have it.No Longer Supported
      Truck driver
      Stewart Dimmock brought legal action against the school system to
      prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being taught in school as factual
      information. The UK High Court has issued a preliminary ruling that
      teachers must make clear that:
      The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument

      teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in
      breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political

      Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children”

            1. Contradictions? That’s the warmists specialty. Right after Katrina they warned us that we were entering an era where hurricanes would greatly increase in numbers and intensity.
              When it’s abnormally cold the warmists either dismiss it out of hand, or worse, twist science on its ear and say that abnormally cold weather proves there is global warming.
              If it’s abnormally hot then the strut around, patting themselves on the back saying “We told you so.”
              No matter what happens weatherwise they rationalize that it proves global warming, global climate change, global climate disruption.
              Believe the charlatans if you will, but the only time I’d worry would be if the climate stopped being in a state of flux.

                1. You are correct, the warmists are spouting drivel.

                  But, let’s consider rising ocean levels. Do you realize that someday, barring seismic upheavals, the entire surface of the earth will be covered with water. It will not be due to pollution or any other results of what mankind may do to the planet. It will happen without any help from man.

                  It will be due to erosion. Wind, ice, rain, waves, currents, etc., all scour the face of earth. Erosion will over time erode every bit of earth that is above sea levels and speck by speck, every bit of matter that falls to erosion will end up in the oceans, causing their levels to rise. It is inevitable. It is natural. It is easily understandable.

                  Ocean levels changing, both rising and falling are natural occurences. Your beloved scientist will tell you that The Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia has been as much as sixty feet above sea level three times in the past million and a half years. That was long before man walked the face of the earth.

                  So much for the “scientific” drivel about rising sea levels.

                    1. Yes, they are. Glad to see you understand that.
                      No rebuttal regarding ocean levels rising being a natural occurrence?

            2. “the science”?!? Oh, you mean this:

              “[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying ‘Water by request only.’” ~ Dr James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Space Institute, testimony before Congress in June 1988

“By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.” ~ 5000 Days to Save the Planet ~ Edward Goldsmith 1991.

              June 11, 1986 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal) “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

“A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years.” ~ San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 1986.

              “Scientists predict an active 2013 hurricane season due to accelerated Global Warming and the warmer Atlantic Ocean. They are calling for 18 named storms, nine of which will become hurricanes and four of which will develop into major hurricanes. That’s about 50 percent more activity than during a normal season.” [N.B. It was the calmest hurricane season that year in decades.]

                1. So, if a news story fits the narrative, its OK, but if it contradicts what the science model predicts, it’s ‘cherry picking’. Interesting way to try to stack the deck for yourself, but kind of obvious (not to mention factually wrong). Solid science makes repeatable predictions. The ‘cherry picking’ you referred to was not just ‘news’ stories, they were reports made from global warming alarmists BASED on predictions made by climate science. If the predictions turned out to be wrong, then the models making the predictions were wrong and by extension the science the models were built on was faulty. Questioning faulty science is not denying it,it’s questioning faulty science; no more, no less. Simply replying that anything you don’t like ‘isn’t science’ is the recourse of the intellectually retarded. Besides Empiricism, good science also employs Rationalism and Skeptism. You remove ANY of the three and your science falls apart. Climate alarmists can’t stand the fact that science is not a democracy. The statement the ‘the vast majority of climate scientists believe…’ doesn’t mean squat if the the predictions made by the models are friggin wrong. The vast majority of geologists believed against continental drift when it was first proposed. Guess what (hint: they were wrong too)?

                    1. You’re talking out your arse. Either you are in serious need of a dictionary, or that intellectual retardation is at work again. If you are going to say that predictions made by the models generated from those making up the ‘scientific consensus’ of which you speak (which is debated itself when it comes to this topic, by other climate scientists I might add. As I said before, Science is not a democracy) and then reported by the news (something scientists themselves actually perpetuate on purpose to get ideas out and funding in) are mere anecdotes when they are wrong, then the same treatment must be made of any evidence to the contrary. If a current set of theories makes said predictions and they turn out to be wrong, then the consensus is wrong, back to the drawing board.

                      Regardless of the reporting source. Methods used to get to the prediction and find out what went wrong will utilize the method, but observing that an expected behavior did not occur does not always require someone in a lab coat to point it out; you don’t need consensus to see when an experiment has failed to produce the expected result. One disproved prediction is enough. Moving the goal posts will not change this. The theory will have to change as well. Once the predictions can be duplicated (and observed multiple times) then consensus will actually matter. Till then, it don’t mean diddly squat.

                      Nice try though. Better stick to the pipes, science does not seem to be your forte.

                    2. Your previous responses have already shown you lack any credibility to speak for any scientist, let alone climate scientists. But since you seem to enjoy making an arse out of yourself, by all means, do continue.

                    3. Climate Scientists don’t need me to speak for them, they speak for themselves and they disagree with your bullshit. But of course you spend your day attacking Climate Scientists so for you to make moronic pronouncements about who is qualified to speak for scientists is risible. Face it, you’re a crackpot in an echo chamber of crackpots.

                    4. What bullshit? So far I have yet to ‘attack’ anyone. You made a fallacious claim (something most would agree is ‘bullshit’ since it is factually false) about how science works and I corrected you, more than once. You presented a logical fallacy (argument from authority, despite the fact that the ‘authority’ in question has made several false predictions, indicating faulty science), another form of ‘bullshit’ multiple times and I simply pointed it out. It does you no good to bitch and moan about it, you just continue to make a bigger arse of yourself. You sir, are the crackpot who simply has no business on boards making ‘pronouncements’ about science or scientists, since clearly, you don’t know what the fig your talking about.

                    5. I already have dipshit. I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap better retorts than that.

                    6. Yeah, too bad your reading comprehension seems to be hindered as well. You see, had you taken the time to actually read what I wrote, you’d see I fully justified my logical fallacy claim. When the authority is question has made several false predictions with it’s science, yet continues to proclaim or act as said science is sound, they lose some some credibility. When dip shits like yourself suspend all critical thinking and reason and even go so far as to have ‘literary duels’ in efforts to prop up bad science, you do nothing to actually perpetuate solutions and in the process commit the logical fallacy. If you choose not to see it because you will not see the errors of the ‘consensus’, this is not my problem, but don’t accuse me of incorrectly using the fallacy when I have gone so far as to explain it for you in crayon. The consensus may be made of ‘authorities’ but if the science they produce constantly producing faulty predictions, we simply do not ‘accept’ the same thing from them over and over again. It does not follow.

                      Since consensus matters so much to you, I hate to burst your precious bubble but even the ‘97%’ consensus study (now almost six years old I might add) was debunked some time ago and only serves to show how perpetuated bullshit is just as difficult to eliminate as good information is to perpetuate.

                      Now since it’s clear you really have nothing to add to this conversation other than the predictable verbal jabs of an adolescent devoid of any real argument, I will bid you ‘adieu’ and quietly laugh to myself as you do what every predictable fool can’t prevent themselves from doing.

                    7. You are a case study in intellectual dishonesty. Those definitions clearly devastate your idiotic and inaccurate accusation of Argument from Authority. Shame you lack the character to admit it and instead go on a petulant and inaccurate rant with your typical echo chamber driven assertions.

            3. What is your degree? For one quoting such a knowledge of science, do tell your credentials. I have a PhD and two MS degrees. I say you are a parrot wannabe only repeating what your “betters” tell you.

              1. Amusing to see you tout qualifications without specificity because that would give the game away wouldn’t it. Like the other fools here you must pretend this is you vs. me and not you vs. an entire scientific field because you don’t have a leg to stand on.

        1. LMAO@”scientists agree…”! WHICH “scientists”? And according to WHOM? The only “real” thing about Global Warmism is that it’s a real scam.

        2. If I were in charge (to save the planet from climate change) I would:
          -Set up a carbon exchanged so my cronies and donors would make trillions of dollars
          -Tax all carbon types and redistribute that money to potential voters, who are most affected by climate change
          -Hire 100s of thousand of like minded public servants to manage this program and its distribution
          -Offer grants to those who provide support for why the exchange, distribution of wealth and program is needed
          -Regulate the Internet via the FCC to ensure my message gets out and dissent is curbed
          -Allow non citizens who are disease infested and share no love for the country to enter freely
          -Operate a zepplin / balloon above the DC area to protect govt. from the people
          -Demonize those who disagree, point out the climate change prediction failures, or science review
          -Hire Social Scientists to model our success
          -Produce movies that portray deniers as (liberals) delusional and mentally challenged
          -Propose communism to save the world if money cannot fix climate change

    3. Great point about the ad hominem attacks but the AGW alarmists are also big fans of Reductio ad Absurdum attacks – in this form:

      1) Scientists study Gravity so Denying Gravity is Silly.
      2) Scientists study AGW, therefor Denying AGW is silly.

      The propaganda machine is meant to conform consensus, by trying to tell people to stop thinking about science. Did scientists stop thinking about gravity once Newton discovered his mechanics? No. Science is questioning. Not a consensus of peers.

      Folks would be wise to teach their children Aristtole’s ‘On Rhetoric’ – where the propagandists appeal to the ‘Ethos’ of ‘the peer-reviewed settled science’ and ‘Pathos’ of the ‘the scary denier and the end of the world’ seem to trump the ‘Logos’ of what true scientific inquiry is. Teach your children to recognize logical fallacies, and they will never be fooled by this rubbish.

    4. I think the believers in climate change (global worming) belong in the group he describes, but the money to be made (billions) are mind altering and character attack lies are implied to him and his clan.

    5. Don’t ever elect a democrat, they just told you what they think about you. If you continue to support them, you really deserve the epitaph the democrats just gave it to you.

    6. The only problem with your theory is that the best source of facts is the scientific community and they’re convinced. Hmmm… who to believe? 97% of scientists or you and your politically motivated denialism.

      1. Here’s an inconvenient truth about the “97%” con game for you, Angie Dorbus:

        So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “97% of 
all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

        Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful 
in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by 
peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “97% of all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

        That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions:
The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

        The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a 
significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 
 So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which 
contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture 
and deforestation?

        And this:

        The University of Illinois study originally included 10,257 respondents. Of that group, the researchers (Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman) concluded 10,180 “weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like”.

        Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated. In reality, the 75 respondents that agreed with AGW is actually only 0.73% of the original sample group.
 Furthermore, in 2013 John Cook et al examined 11,944 articles from peer reviewed literature dated 1991-2011. They found that 66.4% (or 7931 of them) expressed no view whatsoever on AGW/ACC. Of the remaining 4013 articles, 97% (or 3893 of them) agreed with AGW/ACC. This again “demonstrates” a 97% consensus in their eyes. However, fundamental math would tell you the actual percentage of peer reviewed literature from this time frame endorsing AGW/ACC is actually only 32.6%. The actual numbers in both these surveys have been ignored by AGW/ACC proponents in favor of being able to cite the “97% Consensus” argument.

    7. There’s an old saying in law that applies here.

      If you have the law on your side, pound the law.

      If you have the truth on your side, pound the truth.

      If you have neither, pound the table.

      The warmists, changeists, are pounding the table for all they are worth.

      1. If you don’t have a table, pound the skeptics. That’s what’s next. AGW is the biggest joke of the 20th and 21st centuries. We’ve all laughed at it quite a bit, but to the people who believe….well…they take it quite seriously. Some take it deadly seriously.

  2. Al Gore, Obama, and the rest of the big carbon foot printing globe trotting jet setters are a bunch of lying bastages of the warmest magnitude.

  3. Of course the warmists are have already been shown in film. They follow Forrest Gump when he is running. It is funny that so many people get worked up over something that we should never be concerned about. warm is good cold is bad. Ice? Belongs in a margarita.

      1. If that is true then we are heading for World War III because that’s what happened right after the last progressive movement in America

      1. Naked, shameless fascism, indeed. Where is the outrage? Try to imagine threatening the warmists with punishment. Too funny! The hysterical, sky-is-falling alarmists should be punished — so says the former Vice President of the United States! Can you imagine? The warmists would wet themselves.

  4. Clearly, there is something other than science behind the belief in Anthropogenic climate change – fraud, plunder, sedition???

    Today, the believers in anthropogenic climate change are sun deniers, against the scientific evidence that the earth’s temperature is more closely correlated to sun spot activity than to CO2 levels per Harvard’s hundreds of years of observations…

    No coincidence that Boston’s all time record snow season will occur in one of the sun’s quietest cycles in more than a century…

  5. The late Michael Crichton called out the climate change disciples to release the data and predicted–accurately–that that data would be massively flawed.

    1. I remember his writings about it right before his death. Fascinating reading and of course, you never hear about it. The Lib media doesn’t want anyone to hear the truth.

  6. I think I got it now. I don’t want to be punished for getting this wrong!

    When it’s COLD or turns COLD it’s the next ICE AGE.
    When it’s HOT or turns HOT it’s GLOBULL WARMING.
    When the weather does ANYTHING it’s CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Okay it makes sense now…. herpty derp

    1. Dear Al,

      Don’t get your knickers in a twist,
      But AGW just don’t exist.
      It’ll get hotter this we know,.
      But then, sometime later it’ll snow.
      The answer, it is all sublime,
      The Solar Cycle changeth Clime.
      So get ye home, and have a drink,
      And let the smarter people Think

      Real Scientists

      1. Global warming may exist but it isn’t caused by man and that’s where the argument comes in … One solar flare can heat the planet and one volcanic eruption can cool it … Plus there’s no such thing as consensus in science

  7. You can always tell a propagandist, they don’t respect free speech, but rather personally attack those who have an opinion different from their own or scientific evidence which opposes their position…

  8. It’s time for environmentally enlightened celebrities and politicians to set a good example and demonstrate to the rest of us how to observe Air Hour.

    It’s like Earth Hour but instead of turning off the lights, you show you deep abiding love for Mother Earth and concern for the good of all humanity by giving up breathing for just one hour. But in order to succeed, it has to start at the top: The White House and all of Washington DC, the UN climate councils and panels and, of course, Hollywood.

    For the future of the Earth and all life upon it, please, show us how it’s done.

    1. Don’t worry! This movie is going to be too preachy for anyone to enjoy. That’s why we go to movies-to enjoy ourselves & take a break from all the dreck being thrown our way.

      1. The ‘O’s need to be the Blue half circle with the red and white stripes under it—–not literate enough on the puter to do it, but someone should

  9. Keep fighting the democrat prevaricators. CFC destruction of stratospheric ozone caused the stratosphere to cool some 1.4 C and the earth to warm some 0.5 C from 1965 to 1998. The Montreal Protocol completely stopped CFC production in 2000, a lot was stopped before that. After CFCs quit being produced, warming stopped and the earth is cooling slightly. Should be back to normal by 2100. It will take awhile because 1 CFC molecule will destroy 100,000 Ozone molecules during its time up there (University of Alaska). Further, all gases and dust in our atmosphere cool the planet. We get our energy from the sun, not the earth, so more energy is reflected back to space than is reflected back to earth. I don’t think there are many truthful real scientists out there anymore.

    1. I think there are a lot of them—but their interest is accurate data and truth and understnding—-NOT Political Argument……nice on the cfc’s I remember several snowy winters from 48—-to—-63—–but not many since—this is Pacific Northwest

  10. Climate change bad?
    Climate stagnation good?

    What is the optimum metric that defines climate status success?
    (How do we know we have achieved our goals?)

  11. If they cooked the books in their business endeavors like they did with this climate change cult information, they would be in jail as well as having their collective pants sued off.

    1. It’s not even a scientific theory if it can’t be disproven. There is no evidence the warming kooks would accept as disproving their faith.

  12. There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (MMGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, MMGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda.Real science, for example:

    1. says “Question everything”. MMGW says “Questioning MMGW is reckless because it threatens the planet.”

    2. never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. MMGW tries to break that cycle by claiming “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. “SETTLED SCIENCE” IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.

    3. develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. MMGW ISN’T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore’s movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to MMGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of MMGW. There is no observation that MMGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong:

    4. relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. MMGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:

    5. grants awards for disproving accepted truths. MMGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity:

    6. has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but MMGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes:

    7. doesn’t claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist

    8. keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein’s Relativity is still being tested a century later. MMGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn’t like:

    9. accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When MMGW predictions are wrong they don’t question the hypothesis…they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.

    10. never recommends that skeptics be JAILED:

    11. doesn’t create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.

    12. tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. MMGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth’s climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

    1. Well said. Your number 11 is about corporations making profits off it and influencing politricksters. Everywhere you go there are “green” cars, light bulbs, appliances, roofs, etc. “Hey we can increase our profits this year with the ‘green’ products!”

  13. For those who don’t get it:

    If it’s warmer than normal — it’s global warming.
    If it’s colder than normal — it’s global warming.
    If it’s wetter than normal — it’s global warming.
    If it’s drier than normal — it’s global warming.

    And Al Gore, who got Ds in Science in college, will tell you what “Normal” is.

    1. Don’t forget that the Chilean mummies, that have been preserved for 7000 years, are turning to black ooze. Can you guess the culprit….climate change. Other things linked to climate change
      California drought
      More hurricanes
      Less hurricanes
      More tornadoes
      Less tornadoes
      Colder winters
      Warmer winters
      More snowfall
      Less snowfall
      More Rain
      increase in volcanic activity
      Hotter summers
      More Anarctic sea ice
      Less Anarctic sea ice
      More Arctic sea ice
      Less Arctic sea ice

      You can’t make this up. It’s the liberal boogieman of new age.

  14. These people “pushing” this hoax are the most greedy loathsome SOBs I’ve seen in my life. They almost fall in the category of lunatics. Funny they don’t have any ideas how to combat “Climate Change” that doesn’t cost less then hundred trillion dollars. Point is… there’s lots of money to be stolen. I haven’t heard a single idea from these hustling conmen that doesn’t empower goosesteppers to put a gun in your face and steal your money.

  15. Typical Alynsky move by the facist leftist. Marginalize & Demonize. Bill Ayers Bernadine Dorhn and the rest of the Weather Underground cop killers would be proud.

    1. Environmentalist? No, he’s a hustling conman and thief. The meaning of the word “environmentalist” is diminished by applying it to Al Gore.

  16. Speaking of bad films “The United Kingdom High Court has ruled that the book “An Inconvenient
    Truth” (by Al Gore) to be propaganda and described as irredeemable,
    containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush” There
    you have it.No Longer Supported
    Truck driver
    Stewart Dimmock brought legal action against the school system to
    prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being taught in school as factual
    information. The UK High Court has issued a preliminary ruling that
    teachers must make clear that:
    The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument

    teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in
    breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political

    Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children”

  17. Control of the distribution and sale of fossil fuels in anticipation of when the reserves will begin to deplete, is the goal. You will pay through the nose and have limited allocation.

    However, the privileged political class will have all they want.

  18. Al Gore is by now a well known repeat haranguer, who is so obsessed with his jeremiad belief that he cannot recognize his continuous raging has become counter-productive.
    That’s good for the advancement of rational scientific presentations.

  19. If the alarmists can get schools to force-feed this garbage to kids for a generation, the nightmares will make believers of them all.
    It worked for the gun haters in Britain and Australia, but did nothing for their crime statistics.

  20. I don’t believe Al Gore is a sociopath. But, I absolutely believe sociopaths are using him. Sociopaths know a easy “mark” when they see one.

  21. “Loathsome, scary, sadistic” partially describes Al “Goebbels” Gore. Greedy, deceptive and mentally unstable are also part of the package.

  22. I’m guessing that the purveyors of the global warming / climate change scam missed the very important moral most of learned in Kindergarten. when they read “Chicken Little” to us.
    When I hear one of these people speak all I hear is “The sky is falling!, the sky is falling!”.

  23. Make all the lying propaganda films you want, it won’t change the fact that man-caused climate change is a LIE, it’s proponents are LIARS and its believers are IDIOTS!

  24. You know you’re doing it right when you attract attention from the absolute dregs of society, such as this tard who’s previous effort derided the explosion in the world’s food production, which is needed to feed the billions.

    1. YOU have that backwards

      ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’
      The global warmest are manipulating their FAILED data to FOOL people like you out of their hard earned money

    2. YOU have that backwards

      ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’
      The global warmest are manipulating their FAILED data to FOOL people like you out of their hard earned money

  25. Global warming is what occurs in between ice ages. It is a welcome event to all life on earth considering we exist in a universe where the actual temperature is -460 degrees Fahrenheit and the only source of heat is 92 million miles away.

  26. Al Gore….the man who cried wolf and made millions. You see Al when it gets cold I put a warm jacket on…..when it’s hot I put my shorts on…..when I read what you say I laugh my ass off.
    I remember in the 70’s when we were supposed to have an ice age that scientists said was undisputable science. HAH! I believe not a word you say Al. Come to my house and punish me….a denier….and I will punch you in the face.

  27. In the 1930’s there was another group of thought that determined the Arian to be the master race and those not part of that race were also punished. That particular brand of science was also ‘settled’.

  28. In the 1930’s there was another group of thought that determined the Arian to be the master race and those not part of that race were also punished. That particular brand of science was also ‘settled’.

  29. What is this, Nazi propaganda? Even if people don’t believe in “climate change”, these petty dictators will ram through their agenda anyway. No need to act like totalitarians.

  30. What is this, Nazi propaganda? Even if people don’t believe in “climate change”, these petty dictators will ram through their agenda anyway. No need to act like totalitarians.

  31. So if you believe the Sun controls climate,( which I believe IS settled science) then you’re considered scary? Hey Gore you unhinged scam artist, the Sun has controlled our climate for millions of years and will continue doing so for millions more!

  32. This is classic liberalism 101. Liberals have become as predictable as the sun rising in the east! When liberals cannot win a topic based on facts they resort to namecalling, demonization, pure vitriol, liberal cliches, and tried and true liberal platitudes.

  33. All I had to read was about the first two lines when I read the words describing how the film works to “smear skeptics”. And then you know… it is all total bullshi*t. A gore special from the clinton playbook. Smear everyone, that’ll work.

    Let’s get the hollywood limo riders who live in mansions and talk a lot to help us smear others. There ya go.

  34. If globull warming is such a threat, why did the king and queen take separate jets to go to the peoples republik of kalifornia on the same day???

    1. Sir! Don’t you know? The rules that these jerk offs put out for us peasants do not apply to them!

      Hey, per the king… you might have to give up those trips to Vegas and such! Shared sacrifice, you know! While he jets of to California and she jets off to Aspen. On our duckets. What a world.

  35. This is what they are really doing. A global social engineering experiment.

    U.N. Climate Chief: We’re ‘Intentionally’ Transforming The World Economy

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are
    setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of
    time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for
    at least 150 years…


  36. Man made global warming hits the trifecta:

    – Unscrupulous pseudo-scientists seeking massive grants to fund their junk science.

    – Greedy corporations looking to peddle their worthless yet insanely expensive “green” products.

    – Evil politicians seeking to seize more rights away from the people and expand their own power.

  37. The only people that believe in global roaming of people whose lives have no meaning and need something to grasp onto to give them meaning

  38. ‘Like tobacco industry,
    Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming
    certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled
    results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’

    Artistotle’s “On Rhetoric” is a great place to start to detect the weakness of Warmist / Alarmist propaganda.

    1)Science should speak from itself – it comes from reason – Aristolte calls this ‘Logos’

    2)The appeal of fear-mongering in an appeal to ‘Pathos’, the emotion of a person. Ask yourself a question, do you make rational decision based on fear or based on facts? Do you want science to be based on fear or based on facts? Why do Warmists use fear mongering – the appeal to ‘Pathos’, instead of an appeal to facts “Logos”.

    3) The appeal to the ‘consensus’ is an appeal to ‘Ethos’ – these experts should be trusted because the science is settled. Look up Lyshenkoism and see how that ‘settled science’ worked out. If the ‘consensus’ if based on facts, then the facts should be able to stand for themselves. When people massage data, and hide behind strong arm tactics, media control, propaganda films like this. It is more than natural to question what is going on.

    Read your Aristotle on Logic and Rhetoric folks, and teach you children to think for themselves.

  39. Whatever happened to freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expressing an opinion? Why are the Global Warming nuts so Fascist about the wild theories?

  40. The propaganda shills just CAN’T STAND that they are losing the info war! LOL!! IGNORE THEM, and REJECT THEM. This’ll drive ’em CRAY CRAY….

    1. That is a great idea. We should replace the school system with one that is valuable and useful, based on science and not religion at all especially the religion of climate change. Now, how do we go about doing that?

  41. Al Goreleone is the The Godfather. I would be very careful about criticizing him on the internet, he invented it after all. Too much back talk and you`ll be sleeping with the fishes.

  42. Reality and the climate have proven that the religion of climate change is false just like all religions. However the scary part is that Al Gore wants to physically punish nonbelievers. Makes me wonder how many virgins are waiting for him in… in… what does the religion of climate change call their heaven?

      1. Great, then lets keep faith where it belongs, out of the school system. Only science should be taught in schools and not religion, any religion.

        1. Depends on the context. A comparative study or religion or the influence of religion on culture should be ok. Also the historical development of religion for thousands of years is very interesting. Also if we should know why the Muslims committed genocide across the Arab counties and Northern Africa and invaded Europe as well as the history of the Crusades.

          1. If someone wants to study religion then that should be up to them and they can make that choice when they start paying for school. As far as studying how the Muslims killed millions or how the christians killed millions is really irrelevant to progress. Grade schools, middle and high schools should be focusing only on the things that benefit the country such as math, physical education, some science and language arts. Secondary education would be a better place for things like history or religious studies if someone so desires. It could be placed right next to the liberal arts studies in it’s usefulness to America.

            1. Like religion there are a variety of different Physical
              Education faiths – and Theory of Economics faiths for that matter.

              If you don’t know the past, you are doomed to repeat it.
              There are far too few that go on to secondary education and become uniformed and misinformed voters. Don’t we have enough of them?

              Obama is a good example. He was indoctrinated in Islam from the age of 6 to 10. But from his pronouncements in his books, speeches and interviews, it appears he never learned the evil paragraphs of the Koran or Hadiths or the genocidal characteristics of Islam. It would have been better had he learned the history of Islam. I am not suggesting that he be indoctrinated in its faith. There is a big difference.

      2. The Catholic faith punished heretics similarly 500 years ago. When you don’t have freedom of inquiry and respect for science, you can only kill those who disagree with you.

        Algore imagines himself Pope. He would do to climate change deniers what the church did to Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.

        Watch out for these ideological zealots. They must be kept from positions of power

        1. Agreed. Although there were many in the Church that agreed with Galileo and Copernicus.
          Just as now there are many in government who disagree with Obama’s belief in AGW, but prefer to not buck the system. It seems to depend on who is in charge. Down with Liberals!

          1. Well good thing Bush did away with the EPA and all the climate change B. S.. You are 100% right, down with liberals but you forgot to add Republicans to that list also.

  43. When obama says, “It’s the right thing to do,” run in the opposite direction. He is lying.
    When Algore says, “It’s accepted science,” head for the hills! another lie.

    1. Both are politicians, you should know that you can not believe what a politicians has to say. Remember how the Republicans ran on the promise of getting rid of Obamacare and getting rid of the illegals? Anyone who believes anything a politician has to say is a fool.

  44. The only truly scary thing is despite the ENOURMOUS evidence of falsified data and horribly flawed models that predicted we should all be under water by now is that anyone can still believes the nonsense.

  45. At the SXSW Conference Al Gore called for the punishment of Climate Change Deniers. I agree. Lock up the climate change deniers.
    The climate change deniers proclaim that global temperature steadily increases as CO2 increases. Whereas, for thousands of years global temperature has cooled for 30 years and then warmed for 30 years while CO2 has steadily increased. They deny that CO2 increases only after temperature increases; insisting it increases before temperature increases. They deny the benefits of global warming and the benefits of CO2. During warm periods mortality and morbidity decline and crop productivity increases; while the opposite occurs during cool years.

  46. But its just easier to accuse someone of not understanding the science, when lets be honest the science is never settled. And really who does understand the science? Even the experts whip out grandiose doom and gloom predictions that never come to fruition.
    Perhaps instead of antogonizing people who are skeptical of the “science”, perhaps science should do a better job of making their case. Im constantly hearing climate change experts claims that weather and climate are differents, and I get on a micro and macro level that there is a difference.
    But one minute they are complaining that the polar sea ice is melting away, then we see photos of of the polar sea ice advancing faster than any time within the last 5o years.
    Just like people that believe in ghosts, I need more than just anecdotal evidence.

  47. I understand that the executive producer was Leni Riefenstahl and the writers were graduates of the Josef Goebbels School of Journalism. Nice to have such talented people on the staff. I’m sure the millenials will soak it up like the mindless sponges that they are and do so without question.

  48. This video (it does not qualify as a film) will wind up next to the other “fact-based” documentaries such as those about the aliens who created the pyramids and other such nonsense.

    1. Too bad we can’t put all other religions right next to it on the shelf of B. S. But yes, B.S. it is, the religion of climate change is obviously false.

    1. RE: Exterminationist Movies of Old

      Yes. Just like Triumph of the Will (1934) followed by The Eternal Jew (1940). Both calling for the extermination of those who opposed ‘right-thinking people’.

      [History repeats itself. That’s one of the problems with History.]

  49. My wife’s liberal/socialist friends have been walking around for the past few years while mumbling to themselves, never talking about the weather, our floundering economy and declining standard of living and our AWOL national and border security while avoiding eye contact. They seem increasingly emotionally and intellectually withdrawn and detached. Conversationally, they have become incredibly vacant, boring and hollow, more so now than at any other time in my memory. They all seem to share the same disinterested malaise with respect to the very same subjects. Socialization with these people has never been a joy, but over the last 2-3 years iit has become an outright and unwanted chore. Is this just me? Am I imagining this?

  50. The Global Alarmists propaganda machine is working overtime. Another sad, emotion-laced fantasy trying to undermine true science and free-markets for the sake of socialists like Gore and his Saudi handlers. The GA’s can’t win in an open market, they can only control via hysteria, manipulation and extortion…

  51. Another reason why I call them progressive n@zis: hollywierd is their hateful ministry of propaganda. Goebbels would be pleased.

    Hear the jackboots marching in cadence yet? Its deafening.

  52. So when algore gives up his gas guzzling private plane and massive SUV, I think I’ll listen to him, but until then he’s nothing but a greedy pig taking advantage of naive fools who are willing to hand him money for nothing.

  53. I really hate liberals and their tactics. Time to fight fire with fire. We have the power to obliterate them economically and every other way. Let’s get going on it.

  54. These of climate warmers just want an excuse to bully the US into supporting a permeant underclass in the southern hemisphere. Just as they have done to minorities in the US.

    Look to China if you really want some concrete action.

    Anyway, haven’t they said we are past the point of no return.

  55. The man has lost it totally–this is his last gasp to remain somewhat relevant to the human race. Remember the old song “They are coming to take me away ha ha!” Well that is his new theme song. Will this be one of the planks in the democrat platform in 2016? A threat bigger than ISIS or our mounting debt levels. Go Al–I am still glad you never made it to the White House!

  56. Gore is a serial sex offender, anyone who has ever followed the judicial system knows the defendant will say or do anything to avoid punishment. Including villifying the victims. Deep thinkers will reccognize that the Earth is more powerful than puny man. 100,000 volcano’s spewed Carbon into the skies by the tons per minute before mankind ever existed. Our atmosphere has changed many times before the existance of man. The Sun has cycles and has cycled for billions of years, our Earth is actually cooling. The observations of the “warmer” Scientist were adjusted, they admit this fact.

  57. Warmunists live in an information gulag of their own construction.
    in the name of the State, the Bureaucracy and the Holy Environment, Amen.

  58. Hard to believe there are still people who will deny the science that is so plain to see. Good thing they are ultimately impotent, and increasingly irrelevant. The rest of the world has moved on.

    1. RE: The Rest of the World Has Moved On?

      Yeah. All that green-energy money down the toilet. Part of the reason the Euro is about to collapse. Stupid Progressive-Liberal policies on a continental scale.

      [Liberals aren’t. Progressives won’t.]

  59. Global warming makes it colder
    You’d know this if you were older
    Or had just a bit more knowledge
    Of the sort that’s found in college
    But as it is you’re rather dense
    Your head is filled with common sense
    The educated know it’s true
    That common sense will never do
    It simply leads to foolish thought
    Contradicting what is taught
    So when you say the sky is blue
    Or other things that aren’t true
    When you say that grass is green
    Or have faith in what you have seen
    You clearly leave use with no choice
    We must eliminate your voice

    1. RE: Head Filled with ‘Common Sense’….

      ….as indoctrinated by the vaunted American public education system.

      Common sense is not so common. Especially these days, thanks to all those ‘teachers’ in the K-12 range.

      Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive. Easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. – Lord Henry Brougham

      These people are primed and ready to be enslaved…

  60. RE: Heh

    First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they hate you. Then they attack you. THEN YOU WIN!

    This, along with Gore’s desire to punish those of us with more than two synapses to rub together, is the ‘attack’ phase.

      1. RE: Speaking of Journalism

        We’ve got the Pulitzer Prize for good news reporting of old.

        Why not provide for a Putzer Prize for the journalists of today?

  61. David Viner, a researcher at the later-infamous climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia – the Home of the Hockey Stick –in 2000 told the unscientific masses that very soon “winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. Hey Boston? How’d that work out for you guy’s?

  62. Al Gore repeatedly said, in print, “the Arctic will be ice free by 2013”. Gore made this claim in print in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. And it didn’t happen. In fact the Arctic ice cap’s surface area increased by more than 25% in 2012-2013. The much-larger Antarctic ice cap also increased, by about 5% using NASA data. NASA, which is a fully warmist institution peddling the “CO2 hypothesis”, has been forced to admit the Antarctic ice sheet is now at its largest since it started regular satellite monitoring in 1979.

    1. RE: High-Living Liberals

      As Glenn Reynolds likes to put it….

      ….I’ll believe it’s a crisis when people like Al Gore behave like it is.

  63. They can’t produce evidence of climate change, their science has been debunked so what do the environuts do?? Create a movie spreading lies and hatred against those who debunked their global greedy scam, which is actionable in a court of law thankfully.

  64. Check out Kingsman. The Villain wants fighting Global Warming in the same manner as do many radical Warmists.

    Actually, it lampoons may different groups and is great fun.

  65. When you can’t win with REAL facts and a debate on those facts with your opposition – the only way to win at that point is to demonize them, call them Conspiracy Theorist, while pointing down on them from your high seat! This is purely a money making/stealing con – no amount of money is going to stop climate change that has been going on since the beginning of our planet. Maybe clean up some pollution – yes! It is just a tool in the elitist bag of tricks to garner more power, more money, and conquer the industrialized western nations.

    1. RE: Can’t Win with REAL Facts

      Indeed. It’s an application of the infamous ‘Lawyers Rule’….

      [1] If the Law is against you, argue the facts.
      [2] If the facts are against you, argue the Law.
      [3] If the Law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

      The Official Rules: A Compendium of Truths and Laws for Living

  66. The are all worried about “The day after tomorrow” I am more worried about “Gattaca”. I can live with it a bit warmer or colder I can’t live with the tards telling me how to live.

    1. RE: Living with It a Bit Warmer

      What they never tell you is that back in the Middle Ages, the average global temp was several degrees warmer than it is today. And people got along just fine:

      • Longer growing seasons meant more food for everyone.
      • We didn’t invent glass windows until there was a global cold spell.
      • Heavy clothing wasn’t needed for Winter.

  67. Consensus science rule #1: If you can’t prove the science then bash the skeptic.

    Consensus science rule #2: If you can’t prove the science then try to make people feel stupid for not agreeing.

    Consensus science rule #3: If you can’t prove the science then repeat your belief loudly and often.

    1. RE: Repeat Your Belief Loudly and Often

      It’s known as ‘The Big Lie’. Worked for that guy with the close-cropped mustache in 1930s Germany.

  68. It’s time to put the fraudulent Global Warming people where they belong…in Jail…have you spat on a libterd today? Tell them after its caused by Global Warming and the melting of your ice caps

  69. Al the sky is falling Gore has his mansions, limousines and jets to get him through his days regardless of the massive carbon foot print he leaves behind. Do as I say not as I do. Sounds just like Hillary. There is something about a liberal’s sense of right and wrong that does so much harm to everyone but themselves.

  70. It is Algore who is the slimey, cruel villain in his heartless moves to create higher energy cost for those who can least afford it, as one who tries to shame (and intimidate) others into submissive behavior, who encourages non-scientific modeling, data tampering and flat out deletion of pertenate data. He likely has one of the heaviest “carbon footprints” of anyone and lives a lavish life. More than a hypocrite, he is a sham, a fraud and a snake oil salesman.

    1. RE: The Film Academy’s New Category

      And call it the ‘Joey’, after Joseph Goebbels, as offered by another commenter below….if viewing by ‘newest’.

  71. When team X claims the debate is over, and that no one should listen to team Y, I am immediately more skeptical of team X and their positon.

  72. Irony alert:

    Liberals hate religious people. Yet on gloBULL warming they act like fundamentalists, burning heretics and non-believers at the stake.

  73. How much is Al Gore worth again? Oh just around $450M. But yeah money has nothing to do with it. It’s all about saving the polar bears for Al.

  74. So in the world today, if one dares to dispute or fails to endorse the current religion of the liberal leftists, one will be destroyed by the same liberal leftists.
    Recall if you will, these are the same people who always have some catastrophe just around the corner which needs immediate attention, some of which are: global cooling, over population, nuclear annihilation, destruction of rain forest, hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, The only solution to these myriad of calamities is for Americans to surrender their money and their freedom.

  75. .
    We could solve Global Warming, Climate Change, I mean Climate Disruption if we would just raise taxes and be forced to buy Carbon Credits from Al Gore’s carbon trading company GIM.


    1. Yeah, good point. Seeing I don’t see myself as a man, but a superior being, a demi god, these carbon taxes don’t apply to me. Oh shoot, I’m thinking like them now.

      1. Thanks, feel free…

        The Glo-Bull Warming Cult is the One True Religion, and Al Gore is it’s Prophet!

        Algore Akbar!
        Algore Akbar!
        Algore Akbar!

  76. I’d ask the attendees at SXSW one question:

    How many of you who are from outside the Austin area came here by train (the most efficient transport)?

    We have a word for anyone who came any other way: hypocrite.

  77. Denial is not skepticism. Keep your grubby anti-science paws off our honorific. When you ignore the science in pursuit of political dogma you are NOT a skeptic, you are the opposite.

          1. Do you go through life with a bag over your head. Science has established that anthropogenic global warming is happening and will continue to happen 97% of scientists in the field are convinced of it. I can understand that you don’t like all that difficult “sciency” stuff thrown in your face because it makes your denialism look rather foolish, but too bad.

            1. The only fool here is you…that ‘97%’ thing was debunked years ago. Literally, years. And please ‘educate’ me on the ‘science’ by listing facts supporting AGW.

                  1. Then apply your own insipid non-point right back on yourself. Your idea of “scientific debate” is to name-call. If you are so spectacularly incurious that you do not know the scientific consensus or must lie about it to justify your nonsense then you have the problem not me.

                    1. Your entire argument boils down to the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy and ‘ad hominem’ attacks. You also use the word ‘insipid’ entirely too often.

                    2. Thanks, you just showed you do not know what appeal to authority means in the context of a logical fallacy. Appealing to an scientific consensus built upon facts, reason and education is not a fallacy. As for ad hominem, look in the mirror and perhaps brush up on your basic logic. Logic is about more than semantics.

                    3. You claim AGW is true because ‘97% of scientists agree.’ Sorry, but that is exactly the definition of the fallacy. You need to read more Richard Feynman and less ‘skeptical science’ (aka Cook). “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”

                    4. It is a call for data…that’s my point. Where is your data? You say the ‘scientists’ have it, but you can’t give the data to me because you have never seen it yourself (don’t feel bad, no one has). “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

                      – Feynman
                      90% of computer models failed to accurately predict future temperatures.


                      It’s not up to skeptics to prove that your theory is false, it’s up to you to prove that your theory is correct. (I use the term theory loosely, since AGW can be more accurately called a hypothesis due to lack of data).

                    5. You’re not a skeptic, you’re a denier. I’m a skeptic, I have been for many years pushing back against bullshitters like you in many areas from vaccine fear mongering to evolution denial to climate denial. You spouting nonsense about logical fallacies you don’t understand doesn’t impress. Quit posting tripe and read the link I offered so you can educate yourself and avoid embarrassing yourself in future. You demand evidence when almost the entire climate science community backs up my side. You have the burden of proof reversed.

                    6. If you think I’m trying to convince you of an alternative narrative, you are mistaken. You are an Ideologue, you will cling to your ‘belief’ to the bitter end. I only present an alternative view to those who read our debate on-line…those who truly have an open mind. I believe in evolution, I believe in vaccinations, and I believe in science (the idea that you must provide facts to back your hypothesis). Once again, your evidence is; “almost the entire climate science community backs up my side. You have the burden of proof reversed.” You will never understand science…but perhaps those reading our debate will actually see who’s spewing propaganda and who is representing the scientific method. I would love to see what credentials you have to speak with such authority in terms of science…you clearly need to ask for your money back.

                    7. Wrong again, I’m not an ideologue I changed my view on this a year ago. It is amusing the way you sidestepped your idiotic pronouncements about appeals to authority as if you have nothing to be embarrassed about. Keep spouting piffle about evidence, pretend Google is not available to you and pretend the burden of proof is mine when the entire climate science community and their evidence is on my side. LOL you talk about credentials after your sophomoric and inaccurate nonsense about appeals to authority. Visit that link I sent and learn to think.

                    8. I’m still waiting for your scientific evidence…haven’t heard it yet. You are not a scientist…you debate with words in leu of facts. Answer this: what is the correct amount of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere today?

                    9. You keep parading your intellectual dishonesty as if you were not in opposition to the entire community of climate scientists and as if they just decided to go with the flow in the absence of research and evidence. You present no facts and fail to meet your burden of proof against a consensus you admit you oppose (ooohhh how “mavericky”). You debate with deception and false claims of logical fallacies that prove you do not understand the basic tenets of logic and reason.

                    10. Still no facts, you can only attack. Where are your facts? where is your data…no evidence? You are a hack.

                    11. Ahhh butter would not melt in your mouth. I shall leave you to circle the drain. Science will go on. You can continue to carp and lie your ass off from the sidelines. Nothing hinges on your vapid demands for evidence as you oppose real climate scientists who understand the evidence and don’t deny its existence. If you have some facts perhaps you can participate and meet your burden of proof.

                    12. Got it, you have no facts. Thanks for playing, unfortunately for you, there is no consolation prize. Good luck with the bagpipes and ignorance..hope it works out for you.

                    13. Your are still pretending it’s you vs. me when it’s you vs. an entire community of scientists who specialize in their field and are backed up by decades of research. Yet you stand there naked and bleat about evidence and the scientific method that you are hopelessly clueless about.

                    14. Consensus has nothing to do with science. There is no theory without evidence. You are like the 97% that believed the sun revolved around the Earth 1,000 years ago…wrong.

                    15. When 97% of trained scientists who specialize in a field and are immersed in the latest research disagree with you your silly layperson’s objections then you are in trouble. You ain’t Einstein explaining the lack of an absolute reference, you’re a nut objecting on political grounds. Every silly contortion you make further undermines your claim of being a scientist.

                    16. “No” is your answer, climate scientists disagree with you as the literature shows. Then again, you’re the dummy who thought citing scientific consensus was a logical fallacy. I don’t expect you to grok even the basics.

                    17. One other thing, it is quite clear you have no understanding of the scientific method yourself. If you run around opposing the consensus on gravity YOU have the burden of proof. Initially Galileo did, then Kepler then Newton then Einstein, now if you want to stand against those theories you have your work cut out for you. Only a science illiterate would think that you can deny the consensus and demand proof to satisfy your ideologically addled brain.

                    18. All of your above examples challenged the scientific consensus of their times….and Einstein is considered a genius because he challenged Newton’s Law (which turned out not to be relevant in relativistic speeds). I will believe AGW as soon as you give me the facts supporting it. I’m still waiting for your ‘data’….

                    19. Sigh, you just flipped your own assertion 180 degrees to continue your denial. The burden is yours if you seek to overturn consensus, not mine. Your credibility is shot after your confusion over argument from authority. Keep playing the Cargo Cult scientist.

                    20. You are very confused…I don’t have to prove anything…I did not present a theory. You proposed a theory, now you must support it with fact. Your religion of AGW is incredible…and by that I mean you have as much proof of your theory as any other religion…none.

                    21. You can’t have it both ways. It IS the scientific consensus, too bad for your B.S. So then you tried to say that my gravity examples were against their contemporary consensus to imply that your denial has the status of those successful theories (the difference is they had evidence unlike you). So if you oppose consensus that has been proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of scientists in their field (and it has) then YOU have the burden of proof. Merely going against the grain is not enough. This bolsters the impression you give of being a Cargo Cult scientist. Your suggestion that the evidence and research that backs up the opinion of climate scientists has the weight of religion further demolishes your credibility. Keep digging, it is pitiful.

                    22. Again, and for the last time, show me your evidence for AGW. Give me a data set that proves your theory. I will not hold my breath.

                    23. The burden of proof is yours, you have admitted that you are the one going against the consensus. You have proven you are intellectually dishonest in comparing the conclusions founded on scientific research to religious faith. The big lie here of course and the only way you can hope to prevail is to pretend that it is not you against almost the entire community of climate scientists. Well it hasn’t worked this time. Your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare. You’re not opposing me, you’re opposing decades of research and thousands of researchers and their data around the world. You want to deny that, get YOUR proof. Simply denying, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling la la la, just won’t cut it anymore.

                    24. Roger that…you present a theory without facts, and when someone questions you, you tell them it is their responsibility to disprove your theory. That is like me telling you that god exists, and my evidence is that you can’t prove me wrong.

                    25. Repeating your lie will not make it so. Ignoring the literature will not make it go away. Pretending Climate Science researchers have the gravitas of laypersons will not diminish their research. I have already addressed your deception that this is about me vs. you. You are up against the worlds Climate Scientists and they have the data, the published papers, and the theories supported by this. You have your internet ravings in your echo chamber of denialist nuts.

                    26. Again, this is the ‘appeals to authority’ fallacy. You have no facts, you just parrot the ‘experts’ opinion. I almost feel sorry for you.

                1. Scientists? You mean paid shills. Hey, I took meteorology in college. I guess I can now be called a meteorologist! THAT’s the level of your “scientists”

            2. No bag in evidence.

              You’re wrong. I’m very comfortable with science (graduated from MIT, Class of 1970). In fact, I make almost everyone annoyed with my view of AGM. I believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think AGM is one factor that should be considered.

              Where I depart from the “consensus” is that I’m uncertain about several aspects of the debate:
              1. How significant is AGM vs. other factors (mostly the sun)?
              2. If AGM is very significant (TBD for me), what is the best solution?
              2a) Reducing CO2 emissions?
              2b) Filtering solar energy (clouds, dust, …)?
              2c) Accepting it – assuming it’s not catastrophic.
              3. How much is government funding influencing the “consensus”?

              You should replace the first period with a question mark.

              1. Then your position is far more respectable than your average climate change denier. I had similar reservations for a while but was persuaded of 2 by the data and a few individuals who were similarly converted. Now this does not mean that I advocate running our economy off the rails in pursuit of national unilateral economic suicide. I actually agree with 2b and 2c, but denying the reality is bullshit and 2a may ultimately be essential. As for motivated government funding, that rather depends on the party you are talking about.

                1. I don’t actually consider myself a denier. It’s certain to me that humans can change things. Just the amount of asphalt I see depresses me. [If concrete isn’t viable, then at least use brighter-colored sand in the mix.] Cutting down rain forests certainly reduces the CO2 recycling done by plants. And emitting lots of CO2 does have a greenhouse effect.

                  When I worked in government-funded research, I saw a whole lot of answers that were just what the funders wanted. I was extremely unpopular for objecting to this. In fact, I left for the private sector because of it. [That is not a panacea BTW.]

                  I think the e-mails have shown some cause for skepticism as have the various “adjustments”. But I’m not a specialist, so I can’t really evaluate the data critically. Perhaps you are. But the consensus has been wrong before. I’d like to understand where the 97% comes from and to understand what fraction of those depend on funding from “interested parties”.

                  You mentioned one of my biggest worries: “unilateral economic suicide”. If we’re all going to hell in a hand basket because China and India and … continue to increase emissions, I’d rather die rich than poor.

                  For 2a: Let’s develop Traveling Wave reactors (Bill Gate’s TED talk is decent) or LFTRs (my choice). Both will eat current nuke waste and drastically reduce the half-life of the result. Then fuel cells. Then we can use the old dinosaurs for what they should be used for: lubrication (which doesn’t produce much CO2).

                  Finally, I see a lot of analysis that doesn’t include the entire lifecycle. One can argue that electric cars are the answer now. But the costs (without subsidies) are huge. And at least some of the costs are fairly directly map-able to CO2 emissions. There seems to be axes being ground if you follow me.

                  I’m outta here.


                  1. Thanks, you are certainly more cerebral than most of the reactionaries around here. My own position used to align quite closely with yours but for me the scales tipped towards the AGW side of the debate relatively recently. Again that doesn’t mean we must rush to commit economic suicide.

    1. To which “deniers” do you refer?

      1. Those who deny AGM?

      2. Those who deny the current temperature pause?

      or, Worst of All,

      3. Those who deny that playing the bagpipes causes a lot of CO2 emissions? 🙂

  78. Sounds like major Hollywood warmists didn’t think their arch nemesis was famous enough….
    I had never heard of the guy before reading this article. I guess I have some reading to do…
    But one thing I noticed is that the warmist didn’t have any other point to make other than this guy is giving them a virtual atomic wedgie and they have no defense.
    Their weak “science” doesn’t seem to be cutting it anymore, and they are jealous that the narrative has dumped them in favor of the other guy. Like the homely girl who can’t get anyone to dance with her.

  79. I will stop being a denier when Al Gore moves into a 8 room off the grid house, starts taking public transportation and donates all of his money to putting solar panels on public housing projects.
    I will stop being a denier when Leonardo DeCaprio gives up his jets when he goes to Earth Day celebrations.
    I will stop being a denier when the US government stops giving 25 billion dollars a year to “climate change” propaganda machines who couldn’t get a real job so they spout skewed data.

    1. No they won’t , because politicians will blame the scientists and the scientists will blame the computer models…and that’s the real shame in all of this…scientific credibility will take the hit when all is said and done, especially environmental science.

  80. This is how science works, now? If you don’t agree with the “concensus,” you’re of the Professor Gruber persuasion (stupid) or hateful or sick? This is the persuasive intellectual position for the climate change/cooling/warming/calamity believers? Agree with us, or you’re a DA? Isn’t that interesting?

  81. Hey lib’s, do us all a favor, both barrels in month, then pull the trigger. You see, one less Fuk’en liberal carbon f’en footprint to worry about

  82. “People like Morano have made a career out of being contrarians, and they are very good at it. When a scientist comes up against a well-trained, savvy person, scientists will always lose in the debate.”

    Point of correction: When government-funded scientists turn alarmists and support their half-baked theories with incomplete, error-filled and often fabricated evidence, those scientists tend to DEFEAT THEMSELVES in the debate.

    Which is precisely the case with the “Manmade Global Warming” hoax.

  83. Despite all the evidence against climate change, including fraud, fabrication of scientific data, the geologic record, they continue to repeat the lie. I seem to recall this tactic being used in Germany during WWII.
    BTW, has anyone ever heard of the carbon cycle? Just curious.

  84. Gore and his cult are the real deniers. They deny their own models, that were wrong. They deny earths natural climate history that can be easily read. They deny changing raw data to support their lies. They deny lying about the claim that 98% of scientist support this world wide hoax.

  85. This film is a projection in more ways than one. The most obvious is the warmists projecting their faults and flaws onto others who deign to disagree with them.

    It is they who are the loathsome, despicable, villains.

  86. Classic liberal-progressive propaganda ploy: create (fabricate) data to support a predetermined hypothesis; apply pseudo-scientific analysis; ignore relevant (eg., sunspot activity); and, when all else fails, launch vicious personal attacks on the opposition because there is no factual basis upon which to debate the merits of their position.

  87. Add narcissistic to the list of condemnations to the American right and it’s disdain for future generations. They don’t need proof of Jesus, as I don’t either as a Christian, but they pretend to demand proof on climate change because it threatens their bottom line. To Hell with future generations, the anti environment American Conservative is the most selfish incarnation of “American” in our history. I hope they all rot in Hell.

  88. Well, they already think we are evil, maybe we should put a little evil on them. You know, get them ready for when Obama’s pals from ISIS show up. I promise you those guys won’t want to be hearing anything about Climate Change.

  89. More hypocrit socialists who want to take YOUR money, siphon off much of it for themselves and use the rest to stop the “boogeyman,” in this case global warming. You have to be REAL simple to let members OF the 1% tell you how to live your life while they live lavish lifestyles on YOUR DIME. Like I said before… in the civilized world we use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to prove or disprove stupidity like global warming and it DOES NOT HOLD UP WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS APPLIED. Global warming is a demented FANTASY of the tortured looney left. Study socialism and Marxism, people… this is right out of their playbook. They divert your attention “over here” so you will not notice what they are doing OVER THERE! It’s all a scam to get YOUR MONEY IN THEIR COFFERS and exert CONTROL OVER US ALL. AlGore is trying everything he can to be relevant again… but it’s all built on a house of LIES and hypocrisy… it’s all snake oil folks.

  90. Global Warming relies on the same thing as its mother – Evolution. Neither have observed facts in their favor, and both require the strong arm of the State in order to propogate their dogma. Look on Youtube for “Global Warming, evil spawn of Evolution”.

  91. Global Warming relies on the same thing as its mother – Evolution. Neither have observed facts in their favor, and both require the strong arm of the State in order to propogate their dogma. Look on Youtube for “Global Warming, evil spawn of Evolution”.

  92. The only people socialists d/b/a Democrats refer to as “scientists” are fellow socialists or crony capitalists profiting from politicians giving them taxpayer money to fudge facts, reason illogically and conclude ridiculously, as they have gladly done for many decades. In other words, socialists use our money against us to serve their socialist objectives and then claim we are the bad guys.

    Socialists want people to assume that the government industry, which can steal our wealth and other rights and which has 22+ million government employees, plus tens of millions more contractors and welfare recipients profiting from taxpayers, cares much more about us and the truth than private industry, which can not force us to buy its products or services and must address customer concerns and costs in the marketplace where consumers can choose solar, wind, NG, propane, coal, oil, geothermal, etc.

    The only solution socialists propose to “solve” “man made” “global cooling” er “global warming” er “climate change” is an increase in the size of the socialist government industry, reduction of our freedom (individual rights) and redistribution of our wealth. For example, Emma Brindal of “Friends of the Earth,” said, “[a] climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” On 8-11-09, UN Sec.Gen. Ban Ki-Moon said “developed countries must provide . . . financial . . . support to developing countries. . . . billions of dollars.” On 8-11-09, 10 African countries demanded $67 Billion/year to “mitigate” “man made” “global warming” “damage.” On 9-7-09 Barry Aminata Toure said, “It isn’t even aid we’re asking for. We simply want a fairer distribution of wealth, that’s all.” Obama said ” when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    The only man made crisis we face is socialists running government as organized criminals.

  93. NWO paid Gore $300M to promote the idea that your average citizen is responsible for unobserved global warming and needs to be taxed to death. This propaganda is another brick in the wall of Obama’s Socialist Totalitarian Police State. That wall is nearly complete. Just check your ObamaCare tax bill coming due.

  94. If they had a coherent, plausible defense of their premise it would be seriously considered. This vile approach does nothing but confirm their premise is false. It is an attitude approach fueled by panic. Their premise has been cut to pieces and they know it.

  95. The Warmites have failed at convincing people of the “validity” of their socialist scheme so they increase the agitprop. It won’t work because the facts will keep getting online. They’ll have to declare martial law and likely will, too.

  96. When I hear the kind of rhetoric & threats by Al Gore & Company, I can’t help but believe that we are not far removed from a police state. Given the chance, these socialists would revert to their default setting. Sad, but predictable.

  97. ‘The Marx Brothers’: Director Robby Kenner of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is’ little brother of 1960s radical leftist Martin Kenner’ – Naomi Oreskes warned many skeptics ‘see environmentalists as creeping communists. They see them as reds under the bed. They call them watermelons — you know, green on the outside, red on the inside. And they worry that environmental regulation will be the slippery slope to socialism.’

    Go figure.

  98. The English banned Al Gore’s movie and book for classroom use because it wasn’t factual. Hmmmm the leftist British even think Al is confused.

  99. Global warming is a tinfoil hat doomsday scenario but the left’s use of global warming propaganda to justify expansion of big government economic control to replace capitalism is a real disaster scenario.

  100. ell thank god for monetized weather. What’s the best way to sell a product? “If you don’t buy this product, you and everyone you know will die and the planet will be destroyed!”. Except we passed laws against that kind of advertising, toss him and his marketers in prison, we are over it.

  101. Bullfeathers! The world has been slightly cooling for 17
    years now, despite the amount of CO2 going up significantly, disproving the
    theory that the more CO2, the hotter it gets.

    At PetitionProject dot org
    and you can see over 9,000 PhDs and 22,000 other scientists state that
    carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas and that human activity is NOT causing
    catastrophic global warming. The fact that levels keep rising but the
    temperature has stayed constant for 17 years proves CO2 is NOT a problem. See
    ScienceAndPublicPolicy dot org, thegwpf
    dot org, ClimatDepot dot com, WattsUpWithThat dot com, and stevengoddard dot
    wordpress dot com . Also see the startling quotations from global warming
    leaders at Green-Agenda dot com such as:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the

    industrialized civilizations collapse?

    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

    – Maurice Strong,

    founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the

    United States. De-development means bringing our

    economic system into line with the realities of

    ecology and the world resource situation.”

    – Paul Ehrlich,

    Professor of Population Studies

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of

    reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality

    – Professor Maurice King

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place

    for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the
    roads and

    plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,

    free shackled rivers and return to wilderness

    millions of acres of presently settled land.”

    – David Foreman,

    co-founder of Earth First!

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the

    affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,

    use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,

    and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

    – Maurice Strong,

    Rio Earth Summit

    “The Earth has cancer

    and the cancer is Man.”

    – Club of Rome,

    Mankind at the Turning Point

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;

    the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication
    of people.

    We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms

    the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand

    apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

    – Prof Paul Ehrlich,

    The Population Bomb

    “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world

    at the present North American material standard of living

    would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard

    of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”

    – United Nations,

    Global Biodiversity Assessment

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is

    more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

    – Club of Rome,

    Goals for Mankind

    “The common enemy of humanity is man.

    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up

    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,

    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All

    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only

    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.

    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

    – Club of Rome,

    premier environmental think-tank,

    consultants to the United Nations

    “We need to get some broad based support,

    to capture the public’s imagination…

    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,

    make simplified, dramatic statements

    and make little mention of any doubts…

    Each of us has to decide what the right balance

    is between being effective and being honest.”

    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,

    Stanford Professor of Climatology,

    lead author of many IPCC reports

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.

    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,

    we will be doing the right thing in terms of

    economic and environmental policy.”

    – Timothy Wirth,

    President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…

    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to

    bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    – Christine Stewart,

    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our

    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    – Prof. Chris Folland,

    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions

    that provide something very useful.”

    – Dr David Frame,

    climate modeler, Oxford University

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an
    ‘over-representation’ of the facts

    on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

    – Al Gore,

    Climate Change activist

    The only way to get our society to truly change is to

    frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

    – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

  102. Using green technology we could build a really nice set of structures made out of biomass and heated by solar. Even the guard towers could be built in this fashion but we’d still have to use iron pillaged from the earth for the cyclone fences and the razor wire.
    But at least we’d have someplace to put all these deniers!

  103. So the movie is an antithesis of reality and the antagonist is the antithesis of Gore. How rich has Gore gotten off this Global Warming scheme? A scheme the professor who taught him it admitted it was a scheme pubpically (after the university wouldn’t name a college he came up with to keep getting gov’t grants.

  104. All these people who care so much about the planet and yet they don’t utter a peep about Fukushima… Isn’t that interesting, it’s only been four years and it’s spilling radioactive waste into the air and Pacific Ocean every day, these people who care so much… when are you people going to learn tithing for yourselves? Jezuz.

  105. The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON’T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.

    Any time period the warmunists want to “prove” there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter – now they have the perfect example – the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic… Wait, no, it didn’t, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

    Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

    These SCUM never have a TECHNICAL solution to these “problems”.

    1. So you managed to drag up a few disjointed and out of context bits of evidence from the Jurassic but fail to explicate how that is applicable to the current era and status of Earth. Most of the extant of the that period went extinct due to climate change. Too many Americans like you have easy access to the internet and, for that matter, to all manner of scientific and technological advancements you had nothing to do with, but feel free to deride the people who made all this possible because you’re oblivious to the intellect, education, knowledge and experience needed to have a career in science. I am assuming your parents are every bit as stupid, ignorant, superstitious and uneducated as you are and, therefore, are proud of their little bundle of retard. Please don’t pass your stupidity on to your spawn.

      1. Remember me? I smacked you down last week on this very subject. Actually the post is in perfect context. A quote from the above post, albeit a sarcastic one which I believe conveys quite eloquently the fact that C02 levels have been much higher in the distant past without human influence.

        “The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those
        Dinosaurs – with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and
        stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE
        PLANET!! With their DGW”!

        You even elude to the same thing in your own post. “Most of the extant of the that period went extinct due to climate change.” Without human influence! Natural forcing. But as I pointed out last week, the last 400,000 years is much more relevant which is also why James Hansen arbitrarily altered 40 years of ice core data to show C02 levels lower than modern times.

        I know, I know you’re going to tell me I don’t know the difference between a névé and firn in ice core slices. And you’d be right as I am not an ice core researcher but I can read and interpret their data on C02 levels. Which makes me wonder, were you trying to claim you’re an ice core researcher?

        So lay it on me. Hit me with your ad hominem, maybe a straw man. Oh, Oh I know you’re going to refute what I wrote without actually offering evidence to the contrary. “I strongly refute what you wrote.” Oh, in what way? “C02 never exceeded 290ppm in the last 400,000 years” But I just told you they were altered (lowered) by Hansen because he said “it just couldn’t be right.” He altered the data, years of research, because it didn’t fit his theory. Odd how you can accept C02 levels in the 2,000ppm range millions of years ago but doggedly believe somehow they never exceeded 290ppm in the last 400,000 years which is as far back as ice core sampling can go give or take.

        1. Diatribe of puerile vacuity. I don’t argue with idiots as you want to drag me down to your level and then beat me with experience!

  106. I think we deniers are being set up for extermination. Hitler performed the same propaganda war against the jews before he sent them to the gas chambers.

  107. Too funny. Hard to believe that this is still something people continue to believe. I guess there are some really gullible people in the world. If the media had done its job, this would’ve been knocked down as a fraud a long time ago. Oh, but that would take journalist instead of liberal hacks…

  108. Isn’t it amazing that it is the radical left that uses vitriol, name-calling and slick media hype to “sell its wares”? The method to their madness is that they know facts, common sense, logic and history do not support their agenda in most cases. Therefore, they want a dumbed-down electorate to think with their emotions and feelings rather than their brains. Al Gore has figured out how to get rich and keep his mug in the public square by blowing smoke, first about “global warming” and then changing to the “climate change” moniker. He and his cohorts laugh all the way to the bank with taxpayer grants and climate extortion scare money.
    Of course we all know what a stand up guy Mr. Gore is, right? Just ask Tipper……

  109. IF the cliamte obsessed are looking for real villains, I nominate Naomi. Just listen to her a bit, not to mention seeing her in person. Just sayin’.

  110. I personally do not know anyone who denies climate change- it is how much man is to blame is where the debate lies. Since I am a dinosaur and of modest intelligence could someone explain to me in small words(please type slowly!) how giving money for carbon use or cap and trade will reverse climate change? Also how can giving the govt. more money to waste in anyway slows the building of coal plants in China and India? We could all walk to work and slaughter the bovine community and China would pollute more in a month than we do in a year.

      1. wow thanks for calling me sweetheart cupcake! I did not see anything in your response on how giving more money to the govt. will reduce whats happening in China and India- Lenin would be proud of you – your so useful!

        1. Sweetheart what money are you talking about?????? Are you just making this crap up???? Be specific and name the source of you money scam. Thanks

            1. Sweetheart what cap and trade??????? What carbon taxes?????? Please post your evidence. Remember, Be specific and name your sources so I can make fun of you. Thanks

  111. When we fart, methane and other greenhouse gases pollute the climate and contribute to dangerous imbalances. We need to pass a law mandating that everyone attach catalytic converters to their anus’s. Yearly “smog checks” with associated fees based on the amount and pungency of your emissions.

      1. Too busy to listen to a Climate Believer proselytizing his religion. I am NOT a “simpel-folk” (sic) who doesn’t understand science; I am in MENSA, have 2 degrees and more technical awards and certificates than you need to paper your bedroom in your mom’s basement. When you have to lie, hide and fabricate data and claim there’s a “consensus” of scientists supporting your opinion (there isn’t, by the way), then it isn’t science and is merely a political belief that you useful idiots have turned into a religion. Unless you link to hard-science proof of man-made global cooling–er, global warming–er, climate change–er, climate disruption, your future posts will be ignored for the flyspecks of ignorance that they are. Dismissed!

        1. Sweetheart you have two degrees and your a denier?????? WTF??? You need to go back to school and demand a refund you got ripped-off!!!!! Sorry!!!!! The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed AGW!!!!!! Sorry again!!!! The DATA doesn’t lie, Nasa isn’t gonna bullshit you. Sorry again. You need a good education here it is no charge!!!!

          1. LOL! No hard-science links, I see, just a video from a fellow Believer who is too incoherent to express a single train of thought.

            That says it all about your arguments if you have to pull out a YouTube propaganda video to try to prove anything. I’m done with you, vacuum-head.

  112. Question: With Mrs WJ Clinton in tatters, Lizzie sitting pretty, waiting to be asked, is Al Gore making a run for ’16? I mean the only constituents left have are the die folks who are now building boats (0 months and counting to the Al Gore Armageddon) when they should have been building ski-doos or snow-shovels! And. Al and his buddies have invested millions on technology that kill birds and turned the Mojave desert into a Don Quixote fantasy land.

  113. Politics and the Kool-Aid drinkers who back them have poisoned this issue. Science advances via hypothesis and supporting evidence which often reverses course as new evidence arrives To claim science is “settled” is to prove you don’t understand the very basis of the scientific method. The climate models keep failing to predict the future proving we are still pretty damn ignorant of all the inputs that cause our planet to warm or cool. On the other side equally idiotic are a bunch of people who assume spewing anything and everything into the atmosphere will have no consequences. It’s painful to watch these two groups of idiots cross swords. Instead of refining our understanding of the climate we have science for hire telling the money from both sides whatever it wants to hear.

    1. Sweetheart, let’s cut this short. What have the climate-scientists, publishing, “peer-reviewed” studies concluded about AGW????? I’m willing to bet you have no idea, do you?????????

  114. The same ideology that murdered Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov — and elevated Trofim Lysenko — is at work promoting the man-made “Global Warming” scare. (Better ask someone educated before the 1980s…)

  115. This tyranny will continue Until the common man stands up and personally shoots some of these lying socialist scumbags and their friends in the socialist jew media in their heads….

    1. Sweetheart you want someone to stand up and shoot one of these lying socialist scumbags?????? WTF???? I hope the FBI pays you a visit, you sound like TEAHADIST!!!!!!!

  116. In other news…… Just one week after we identified who Elvis is… His daughter had to cancel her 100 million dollar Vegas gig…. Google this…. Wellaware1 / Elvis.

  117. I have one name for these science illiterates…Galileo. And I am pleased and proud as a scientist to be counted with him and his conviction for science and the truth. I say, bring it on science dunces. Honest data is on my side.

  118. I like seeing the comparison between the selected quote and the larger explication in a full para or two:

    ““Merchants of Doubt” links cigarettes and climate — with a fascinating and troubling detour into an investigation by The Chicago Tribune of the flame-retardant industry — by noting that both the playbook and many of the players are the same. “I’m not a scientist,” a recently adopted catchphrase among Republican politicians, echoes earlier evocations of complication and confusion. In both cases the science could hardly be clearer, but pseudo-experts can be brought before the cameras to peddle the idea that no real consensus exists. False information need not be coherent to be effective, and the specters of vanished liberty and tyrannical government regulation are easy enough to conjure.

    And science can be tricky to explain and to defend, especially in the shouting-heads cable news format. The scientists Mr. Kenner interviews — notably James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, who was among the first to establish a link between carbon emissions and climate change — tend to be earnest and serious. The scientific method is also predicated on intellectual humility, on falsifiable hypotheses and endless revisions in the face of new data. Public relations, in contrast, is built on slickness, grandiosity and charm. These traits are exemplified by Marc Morano, a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism and currently the executive director of the website Climate Depot.”

Leave a Reply