Industry NewsMovie News

Press Declares War on ‘Climate Hustle’ Doc

Take the sexual assault expose “The Hunting Ground.” Most of the attacks on the film came after it hit select theaters and was about to make its CNN debut. The anti-vaccination film “Vaxxed” also got some scrutiny mere days before its planned Tribeca Film Festival screening.

Most documentaries avoid intense media scrutiny altogether.

And then there’s “Climate Hustle.”

The film doesn’t hit nearly 400 theaters until next month via Fathom Events. The press already is working overtime to debunk its narrative.

Climate Hustle Trailer

Climate Depot founder Marc Morano’s documentary challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding climate change. Long story short -- we’re not doomed as Al Gore threatened.

That makes it a rarity in film circles.

The typical climate change documentary preaches doomsday scenarios, like “An Inconvenient Truth.” Others leverage science fiction tropes to scare audiences (“The Day After Tomorrow,” “Snowpiercer”).

Now, with Morano’s coming soon, reporters are using their media pulpits to attack the film.

RELATED: DiCaprio’s Climate Change Alarmism Clashes with Lavish Lifestyle

The Washington Post pitted climate change activist Bill Nye “The Science Guy” against the film’s arguments. The outlet cautioned readers to listen to the celebrity, not Morano and co. It’s all about politics.

The [climate change skeptics] are often aligned with conservative think tanks and political leaders who challenge the science on ideological grounds.

Left unsaid: many in the climate change camp have an ideological basis for their beliefs. Some, for example, suggest draconian measures that fall firmly in line with liberal policies. Others wouldn’t mind seeing climate change deniers jailed for their contrarian views.

Like Nye.

bill-nye-climate-hustle

SeattlePi.com reported on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s contributions to the film’s marketing efforts with this lead paragraph:

Ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not deterred by the latest alarming reports of warmest-on-record months or scientific studies that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet.

Variety reported on a “Climate Hustle” screening in a “just the facts” style. The entertainment site couldn’t resist a parting shot, though. The publication cited a four-year-old label from a far-left outlet.

Media Matters for America, a politically progressive media watchdog group, named Morano the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” in 2012.

The New York Times tried to tie the word “conservative” to the film as much as possible, a tag rarely used for left-leaning documentaries.

The film was co-written and is narrated by Marc Morano, a professional antagonist of liberals and environmentalists who cut his chops working for right-wing luminaries like Rush Limbaugh and Oklahoma Senator James. M. Inhofe.

Media outlets routinely ignore or downplay information that casts doubt on the climate change narrative. Stories that show climate models haven’t been accurate get little media traction. Yet the documentary field hasn’t fully addressed the subject.

Until now.

Audiences can see for themselves when “Climate Hustle” hits select theaters May 2.

photo credit: A Clock Work drowning via photopin (license)

Show More

94 Comments

  1. The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak
    is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.

    – Elanor Norton

  2. That the far-left zealots are in a panic and going to the wall blasting this film, attests to its’ effectiveness in debunking the AGW fraud. I will be seeing the film.

    1. If for no other reason one should go and pay full price. It’s the only way to support sanity. OBTW, don’t go to any of the lefty films.

    2. I’ll be seeing it as well.

      And if people honestly believe in this AGW nonsense they should also see the film.

      Especially if it gets a lot of publicity. I think you’ll see Hollywood big shots and media/entertainment types threaten distributers for showing this film.

      Watch… they won’t criticize it – they’ll try to shut it down.

    3. I have worked in the Texas oil field for the last 14 years. I grew up in it. I see both sides to the coin. I’ve seen blow outs, large spills, people get killed,extremely bad injurys. But to say that fossil fuels have no impact on this small rock we find ourselves floating on is just ignorant. I am a life long learner. Science is all we have. It helps us make educated guesses to predict the future. It has shown us that everything is connected. The earth we live on is a massive living thing. With many complex systems that we still don’t fully understand. That’s the beauty of science. Most people where I live believe that climate change is left wing propaganda. The truth is in the data. You can believe all u want. But when the truth makes you question your beliefs, you can only question your beliefs not the truth. If you let conspiracy get in your way you never see the truth. The earth will be here for a long long time. We will just make it harder to live on. And if u see the future in only your life time then you should be ashamed of yourself. We live on a complex fragile planet that we all should cherish. Money has nothing to do with it!!!!!!!

      1. What if the impact of fossil fuels is a positive one, on this “small rock we find ourselves floating on”? CO2 is plant-food, and higher levels of it mean a greener planet.

      2. Anthropogenic climate change “is” left wing propaganda. There is no proof that it exists. No one can separate out and identify human effects from natural changes. You clearly do not remember very well. During the 1950s and 60s we had severe environmental problems with water and air. President Nixon created the EPA and tasked it with trying to clean things up. They were wildly successful, so much so that by the late 1980s the vast majority of our environmental problems from earlier years were addressed. Ever since, the EPA has been on a misguided mission to justify its increasingly dictatorial and political nature by falsifying data and flat-out lying. The insane war on CO2, a trace gas, is a travesty since CO2 is a critical molecule for life to exist. The complete ignorance of the process of photosynthesis by most people, and the politicians that strive to control our lives is a crime.

        1. All of the worlds scientists are in on the conspiracy. Let’s turn up the oxygen , people food, and see what level it burns your lungs. It has not one thing to do with photosynthesis witch every first grader understands. It has to do with light reflecting back into space. And the more co2 and methane in the atmosphere the less gets ejected back. It’s a finite system not infinite. The real questions I believe is did we land on the moon,did we evolve from apes and single called organisms.

          1. What about the chemistry scam about pot being like heroin?

            What about the chemistry scam about mankind making the Ozone hole?

            You’re wrong. When two objects each glow the identical light off, they are sharing that light and that’s less energy density for the warmer one, which is cooling.

            You’re not even thinking about what you’re saying.

            The atmosphere stops double digits percent energy from reaching the surface of earh. Reducing energy density is cooling.

            The atmosphere then conduction or contact removes the fractional heat that does arrive to emit it from it’s own mass as well as the earth’s:

            causing a lower surface energy density it created

            to be emitted from an overall larger, colder, combined total mass.

            The atmosphere is not a heater.

            You can not make the sky hot using fire.

            The law of thermodynamics for calculation of temperature of gas in chemistry does not have * * ANY * * ‘green house gas” ANYTHING in it.

            Do you even know the name of the law for calculation of temperature of gas?

            Do you know it’s formula?

            Do you know what the factors mean in PV = nRT?

            You don’t even sound sober. You sound like you’re intoxicated on some kind of emotional upheaval for Gaia.

            You need to get a grip on yourself and ask yourself how a sun warmed rock,

            70% immersed in freezing cold water,
            the exposed part whipped by frigid turbulent air,
            got warmer from that treatment.

            You’ve been lied to, Phil Jones confessed in 2010 in his Veb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview that he had been fabricating warming for 12 years.
            He was seen telling scientist John Christy ”the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

            He said that in 2005 and it was seen at the end of 2009, by the public when someone at the lab released their emails to the public where they constantly plotted to claim it had warmed since the 90s.

            Then came his disastrous confession in his FEB 2010 BBC Phil Jones interview.

            He knew it hadn’t warmed.
            Mann knows it hasn’t warmed.
            Hansen knew it hadn’t warmed.
            Their grants scamming was exposed by Al Gore’s movie as the whole world seriously questioned whether it was true.

            Hansen’s claim ”the laws of chemistry can’t calculate the temperature of air” is ludicrous. His claim the temperature of Venus can’t be calculated with the laws of chemistry is ludicrous.

            Steve Goddard (hyperventilating on Venus/Venus Envy)

            Lubos Motl (The reference frame: hyperventilating on Venus)

            HARRY HUFFMAN: no green house on Venus –

            all these people are men who have websites associated with physics or weather and they show clearly how simple it is to calculate the temperature of ANY of the rocky planets using standard gas equations, that have been used for the interplanetary aerospace age we have been founding for the past hundred years.

            The planet is on the back end of a very pleasant warm spell, and we are slightly overdue for the coming massive glaciation: go look at earth glaciation charts and where we are, right now.

            We just came out of a little dip in the warm spell we are in, that is called the little ice age, with our temperature nearly FLAT level.

            But the coming glaciation is going to shut this world down like a half mile of ice over New York. Not the city. The entire state.

            GO LOOK: EARTH GLACIATION CHART.

            Look at where we are now: the BACK side of a nice WARM spell.

            HUNDREDS of years into being due for G.L.A.C.I.A.T.I.O.N.

            It’s not funny and it’s not harmless. People are being taught in school that the laws of chemistry can’t calculate the temperature of air without special magic called a green house effect.

            The LAW for calculating temp of gas HAS no reference to any

            green house ANYTHING.

            James Hansen REMOVED the COMPRESSION of the ATMOSPHERE and SUBSTITUTED ”ADD X = Y degrees warmer.”

            The PEOPLE at the CENTER of the movement have been caught LYING
            and committing OUTRIGHT FRAUD

            as the committees claiming to exonerate them are found to be the ones that exonerated Jerry Sandusky.

            Angry Bird Mann sued a man for telling everyone he’s a liar: He LIED in the FILING that he won a NOBEL he didn’t win, saying therefore that the man had called a NOBEL PRIZE winner
            a LIAR.

            Hansen was outside a rail depot for New York State screaming at little old ladies in minivans that distributing heating supplies was the same as working on DEATH trains to AUCHWITZ.

            He’s the one who told you the temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars, -can’t be calculated by the law of chemistry for solving temperature in gas and atmospheric air. This is FRAUDULENT, the law of chemistry for solving temperature of air works FINE.

            It worked to LAND the probes we landed on VENUS to CHECK that.

            Go look it up.

            Go look at blogger Steve Goddard’s ”real science” site where he has SCORES
            upon SCORES
            of .GIFS he made by copying all of NASA’s online maps,

            and overlaying the ALTERED TEMPERATURE GRAPHS making the PAST COLDER
            and the present seem WARMER.

            * * *THINK TO YOURSELF HOW TRANSPARENT IT IS when PHIL JONES CONFESSED in his Feb 2010 BBC don’t go to jail interview in light of his being caught lying about FABRICATING WARMING for TWELVE YEARS.

            He ADMITS: he FABRICATED WARMING SO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY would not COME DOWN on HIM.

            Go look at the Met Office – who suspended him for not telling the truth, and their press release THREE YEARS after their SUSPENSION and DEMOTION of JONES from general admin to ”research” head-

            in their press release ”The Recent Pause In Warming”
            where they trumpet the three papers they wrote about how
            THEY know
            EVERYBODY ELSE knows
            THEY know

            IT hadn’t WARMED for FIFTEEN YEARS (in 2013 it’s longer now)

            They talk about temps being ”relatively flat” for FIFTEEN YEARS since 1998. (No warming a slight but not statistically significant cooling as Jones confessed THREE TIMES)

            The ”fifteen year pause in Global Warming” is what they said THREE YEARS after they SUSPENDED Jones for LYING and MATHEMATICS SCAMMING.’

            Go read the ”Harry read me file” where a climate scientist went into the global temps repository Jones oversaw and found it utterly trashed, so filled with faked, fabricated information it was worthless.

            ”I make it up : )” was a famous line in that overview of what was happening to global temperature records, when there WERE no records for a place and time.

            It’s a GOVERNMENT CHEMISTRY SCAM
            like when government schools told you POT is like HEROIN.

            And gave you a DARE sticker for agreeing to call the police on your parents because of it.

            It’s a CHEMISTRY SCAM.

          2. So you say the word thermodynamics and put up an equation to try to impress me. Every things is all a government scam. It’s all a global conspiracy. NASA lies to us. Yeah right. NOAA lies to us. It’s all this gigantic cover up.

          3. It’s all a big conspiracy man they are all watching us and they want to take our guns. Whatever man

          4. What you neglect to mention is that only scientists who toe the far-left agenda line get grants. Most of the rest must go into another line of work. It is about as anti-science as one can get. Stalin had his Lysenkoism which accomplished the same thing.

        2. Have you ever been on a frac job and notice all the emissions from around 30 engines the size of a small house put off. I’m not the biggest tree huger bro. I throw used motor oil on my fence post. I know that microbes will take care of it. The grass grows just fine. Have you every stood there and wonder why I feel like total shit. Then you remove yourself from the huge motors and all of a sudden you can breathe. Now imagine all the vehicles of the world and all the power plants, all in one area. Do this everyday for 50 years. Would you want to live by it. Hell no you Would not. So what makes you think that you can continually pump that out and have no consequences

          1. What makes you think you can quantify any of the so-called consequences? Oil and gas are the biological decomposition of dead stuff. It is part of the life cycle. All those released components get devoured by microbes – they do not linger for long. BTW, what was that imaginary, illogical picture of all the vehicles and power plants of the world in the same place? The alternative is a world of squalor, starvation, massive death, and depression. I will take what we have any day over that.

          2. So switching to an endless supply of clean “er” energy is a world in squalor starvation and death. We pump more co2 than natural processes can handle. As says 97% of the scientists of the world. Not just the USA. You know there are smart people around the world right. So until that number drops to the 80% range I will go with the smartest people on the planet.

          3. You will find the 97% number is a con, if you look into the details to see what it really means.

          4. And actually oil and gas is just a different form of ancient sun power. The reason we live in a successful civilization is we have cheep endless energy from fossil fuels.

      3. Fragile?
        If the earth was fragile how has it existed for billions of years being smashed by collisions of unimagineable force for billions of years.

        That adjective has been unscientificly used to describe this powerhouse undefeated warrior of the universe by kumbaya brained people as if it is a reality.

        Go sit on an erupting volcano and you will understand what fragile means and who will be the boss untill the sun runs out of fuel.

        The arrogance of fragile minds.

        1. Have you ever been on a frac job and notice all the emissions from around 30 engines the size of a small house put off. I’m not the biggest tree huger bro. I throw used motor oil on my fence post. I know that microbes will take care of it. The grass grows just fine. Have you every stood there and wonder why I feel like total shit. Then you remove yourself from the huge motors and all of a sudden you can breathe. Now imagine all the vehicles of the world and all the power plants, all in one area. Do this everyday for 50 years. Would you want to live by it. Hell no you wouldn’t.

      4. You are right. The truth is in the data. The big problem that you have is that unfortunately the data does not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory. Global warming has not progressed at all in the manner that the scientists predicted, and in fact we just reached the end of a perid of 18 years when no warming at all occurred. That was broken by the recent El Nino warming, so it remains to be seen whether the pause will continue or not. In the meantime, the scientific principle should be observed. If the data does not support a theory, then the theory is wrong. Einstein swore by it.

        1. I don’t know where you get no warming has happened in 18 years. Totally true about observation supporting a theory. So way do all scientists observations support the theory of climate change due to co2. I have a theory that this getting no where and my observation supports it.

          1. I get it from the data sets. Two indepenent sets of satellite data show no warming of the lower troposphere for 15 years in one set, and 18 years in the other. This might be dismissed as an anomaly in the method of measurement, or something wrong with the calibration, were it not for the fact that radiosonde data agrees with them. Radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements are taken by thermometer, also in the lower troposphere. Ground station data shows a slowing down of warming rather than a pause. The problem with ground station data is that it has uneven coverage and is subject to considerable adjustment which is to some extent subjective, and each individual station may be subject to local anomalies. Looking dispassionately at the whole picture, it is likely that ground station data is unreliable, as nothing else agrees with it. Unfortunately the powers that be give more weight to it because it is their data, and it gives them their desired outcome. One final point, the lower troposphere is the band of the atmosphere in which most of the climate happens. However, not even the ground station data supports the theory that a doubling of CO2 causes one degree C of warming. Ergo the theory is wrong.

          2. The observations do not support the hypothesis of AGW.

            From Nature.com:

            But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, IF NOT IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

            On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

            The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is NATURAL VARIABILITY. But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the MODELS MIGHT BE OVERESTIMATING THE EFFECT OF GREENHOUSE GASES, AND THAT FUTURE WARMING MIGHT NOT BE AS STRONG AS FEARED.

            http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

          3. From your link: Here we show that in the United States from 1974 to 2013, the weather conditions experienced by the vast majority of the population improved. Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes. Climate change models predict that this trend is temporary, however, because US summers will eventually warm more than winters. Under a scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions proceed at an unabated rate (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), we estimate that 88% of the US public will experience weather at the end of the century that is less preferable than weather in the recent past.

            So my questions are….why does this study start at 1974? Should we judge weather patterns based on our lifetimes or from much larger times that do not involve our lifetimes?

            If the study had started even a little further back in the past would the study have had different results, for example, here are some weather events from the 1920s-1930s. I provided a link to weather events going back over 200 years, how is the present any different than past weather events?

            EXTREME WEATHER IN 1920s-1930s

            1922

            August sweltering heat in the Arctic while a typhoon killed 100,000 people in China

            Arctic waters now warmer by 12 C versus earlier years

            Record Arctic warmth allows North Coast of Spitzbergen to stay ice free during winter

            All previous drought records for England broken

            American drought causes riots

            22 inches of rain in 3 days swamps portions of India

            Hotspot in Libya

            Mississippi River flooding leaves 10,000 homeless

            100 F in the Arctic-extraordinary heat wave

            Searing heat wave in Europe causes Alpine glaciers to melt

            Global warming, poles melting, early spring, polar ice disappearing, glaciers rapidly receding

            Frozen Viking found in Greenland

            Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years…Greenland ice sheet might melt

            Seals disappear due to severe arctic warming

            One of the deadliest snowstorms in US history

            Greenland ice cap melting, Northern US will be subtropical

            1936:

            12,000 perish in US Heat Wave—Murderous week

            Secretary of AG Fears Climate Change Making US an Arid Land

            Iowa Christmas Season Heat Wave Sets Temperature Records

            1937:

            Exceptionally early season iceberg menaces shipping

            Dramatic change in the Arctic -7 degree change in average temperatures is experienced.

            Some Arctic regions have 80 degree temperatures

            Soviet Camp at North Pole threatened by heat wave and rain.

            Arctic winter temperatures up 5-7 degrees.

            Arizona struck by rain, hail, dust storms

            Heat wave brings 114 degrees in Saskatchewan, Canada

            Huge forest fire in Canada

            Typhoon, tidal wave and floods wreak havoc on Japan

            Ohio River flood-1 million people left homeless, 385 dead

            Blizzard, sleet, freezing temps add to misery of victims from huge flood

            Mississippi flood forced evacuation of 600,000 people

            45 MPH wind storm blasts Evansville, IN after super flood hits

            Eastern Canada suffers from snow and dust storm combination

            1938

            Monster hurricane surprises then slams NY and New England

            February tornado demolishes village in Louisiana

            Rainfall and huge landslides bury St. Lucia area

            5 dead after 14-day old hurricane strikes near San Francisco

            Soviet explorers say world climate growing warmer

            Melting ice caps to raise sea level 100 feet-islands will disappear

            Tornadoes wreak havoc across 5 states

            Surging floods in China kill 150,000

            Chinese “dust bowl”-no rain in Szechuan for a year-1 million starving to death

            Dust cloud, “Black Blizzard” perils crops in Midwest

            Japan tormented by floods, tornados and earthquakes

            Worst drought in 150 years hits Europe

            Three major forest fires burning up Kentucky

            Major ocean storms unleash huge Los Angeles Basin flood-115 persons perish

            Unprecedented drought, wildfires in Everglades threaten property and lives

            Severe drought threatens Russian harvest

            Drought spreads from Texas to Canada

            Heat wave grips America-110 degrees in Dakotas reached

            US suffers a forest fire every 3 minutes during 1938

            Pacific states swept by fires-600 fires burning forests

            Great New England hurricane delivers 800 deaths and massive destruction

            1939

            American Institute of Physics says global warming unprecedented in recorded history

            5-day heat wave breaks Australian temperature records

            Scientists say it is a riddle why all the world’s glaciers are melting

            Weather bureau confirms winters are milder than previous years.

            Controlling the climate with dust proposed.

            Scientists thinks warming has peaked and new ice age soon to come

            Blinding snow blizzard paralyzes the Midwest to New England

            Abnormal April cold temperatures and blizzard brings misery to Ohio

            Russian scientists say hotter winters and summers for both polar poles

            Half of Victoria burned during heat wave’s disastrous brush fires

            Since 1910, Arctic winters have warmed 16 degrees

            Scientist would paint arctic black, increase habitable area of world

            Unprecedented warming in Norway

            90 dead from 100 degree heat wave, another 39 Californians from wind storm

            New England hard hit by forest fires

            US suffered a new forest fire every 3 minutes during 1939

            Heat wave in Canada causes 21 deaths

            Roaring windstorm whips US East Coast-65 MPH winds

            http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-stuff-happens.html

          4. You all are being played by your party. Renewable energy is more than about going green. For one it takes the money from religious radicals. Less oil bought from them less guns for them. (2). You can become self reliant if you generate your own power. (3) it’s good for the environment. But you don’t care about the last one. I installed a 96 solar panel system about 3 months ago for a conservative government employee. We should all get together and make the USA the most advanced civilization on planet earth. But we have a few whack jobs in the way

          5. You don’t see that it’s more than just the climate change part of it. I get it. you don’t agree what 97% of science. You agree with the science that your party supporters say. Doc believe in evolution?

          6. Resort to the consensus when you can’t answer even basic scientific questions I have asked of you.

          7. When you understand what the AGW hypothesis is come back, because the whole debate is whether or not man or nature contributes mostly to the warming, not that it has warmed, because it has, but how much man is responsible for that warming. The reason I posted that Nature article, is because the warming is less than the what the hypothesis and the models predicted, so obviously something is not right with the hypothesis.

          8. It was less than than the hypothesis when you take into account 1998. Take 1998 out. And you get what the hypothesis continues to state

          9. apparently in your view we can not affect the planet. Why would El Niño seemingly be getting stronger.

          10. Well it could be lots of things such as:

            The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

            And from Peer Review 2010:

            The research, led by one of the world’s top climate scientists, suggests that ALMOST ONE-THIRD of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, NOT HUMAN EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.

            Do you see how much we don’t know, but yet science is settled?

          11. This is science….so how much of an effect? 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%….give me an objective measure since you tell me it is measurable.

          12. The point is we can’t afford to be wrong in this. But some think we can. I don’t so that’s it

          13. Oh and they love to throw 1998 in there that year is considered an anomaly. So throw that one in and average it all out and you get a lower number for the median.

          14. So you believe in all that astrophysics tells us all that evolutionary biology tells. But just not what the dang climate scientists say.

          15. You sound like a jackass when you keep resorting to that discredited “97% of scientists” factoid, Ben. Your homework is to (1) go do your research and find out the historical origin of this bogus factoid and, (2) name the standard logical fallacy that applies to your argument even were your factoid true. Until you do that, arguing with you is a waste of co2. Everybody, help Ben become a smarter Ben by refusing to engage him on this subject further till he shows he is capable of learning.

          16. The email I got from you making this post interrupted me while watching a lecture on statistics in quantum mechanics. I learn every day Sr. And I’m not kidding that’s what I was doing.

          17. I live in Texas and on Friday a tornado missed my house by 3 miles I’ve never seen this area get as much rain as we have in the last year and a half. I’m only 34 I’ve been here all my life. My granddad is 84 been on this property for that whole time. We have a creek that runs through some of the property. Normally you can straddle both sides with your legs spread. This year it flooded 3 times. About 100 yards wide. He said he’s never seen it do that. Would this one observation prove it. Well hell no. But when nearly all the creditable climate scientists say so. I’ll go with them. When they say they nailed down the Higgs boson giving all other particles mass, I’ll go with that. scientists don’t lie. Bottom line.

          18. So 98% of scientist in America support evolution. Then you have 2% crack pots that still try to spread dout in evolution. What side do you choose. I’ll choose evolution from primates. Do you see where it goes.

          19. There is so much evidence to support evolution. I don’t doubt it. What I do doubt is that science in regards to climate is so understood that scientists can say that it is settled and that there can no longer be any discussion on what caused the rapid warming in the late 20th century, natural variability or man. The 98% of the scientists agreed in the early and mid 20th century that there was no way bacteria could be the culprit of peptic ulcer disease, so if those 2 “crackpot” scientists who kept saying bacteria was the cause had just shut up and went with the consensus we would still be trying to treat ulcers with drugs that don’t work. Do you see where science goes when you shut everyone down?

          20. No one is shutting down anything they test general relativity all the time. But it just keeps its truth. Until data comes along that paints the picture that all the climate scientists are just completely wrong then I guaranty all of them will completely change there views instantly. That’s how it works.

          21. I will post this again, the data does show the hypothesis has failed and obviously the models are not living up to the observations, but yet the hypothesis is never adjusted. It always stays the same and anyone who points this out, is literally labeled a crackpot. So tell me, what scientist in their right mind who wants to keep his grants and his job, will say that the science is wrong or that the warming is not going to be as big as first predicted? Because if you notice anyone who comes out and says that the warming is not matching the models, they are immediately slandered.

            From Nature.com:

            But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

            On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

            The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared.

            http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

          22. Scientists love to say a theory is wrong. If they could really prove it wrong they would. I promise. That’s how science works. And that’s why I love it so much

          23. So answer me this, if scientists love to prove a theory wrong, why is that when scientists find evidence that the AGW hypothesis needs to be questioned, they are quick to tell everyone that nothing changes despite observations to the contrary? Example:

            And from Peer Review 2010:

            The research, led by one of the world’s top climate scientists, suggests that ALMOST ONE-THIRD of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, NOT HUMAN EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.

            The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for “closer examination” of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.

            http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/01/susan-solomon-water-vapor-caused-one.html

      5. This is not about damage to the environment, which everyone can agree upon. It is about climate alarmism, which is widely disputed by scientists – other than those who receive a check from the government.

  3. It is really a matter of science.

    Despite all the cliams, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    This is all a matter of science

    1. The CO2 theory dismisses any influence of the SUN, Yet there is undeniable evidence in the climate record that the 11 year cycles, 22 year geomagnetic Solar cycles have changed our climate and All other climates of planets in our solar system.

      1. In order to provide some sort of evidence to support the AGW conjecture, the IPCC supported development of a plethora of climate models. The fact that so many different models were developed is evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. The different models provided a wide of range of predictions for today’s global temperatures. The models all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all failed to predict today’s global temperatures. They have all predicted global warming that has not happened. If these models are evidence it is that there is something wrong with the AGW conjecture. On the other hand, others have provided models that adequately have predicted today’s global temperatures. These “correct” models do not include any CO2 based global warming. These “correct” models, model the primary causes of climate change as being the sun and the oceans.

    2. Thanks for posting that. Here’s another take on the same subject:

      The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

      Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

      But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

      The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

      The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that

      Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

      [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

      by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

      [2] ibid.

      [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

      [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

      [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

      [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

      [8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

      [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

      [10] Ibid.

      [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

      See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

      HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

      ADDENDUM

      What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

      Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

      In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

      I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

      1. Thank you for posting some additional information. I feel that burning up Earth’s very finite resources of fossil fuels is not a very good idea. I would like to have added AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes. I read a recent article where the author pointed out that the original estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were too great by a factor of 20. Those who made the calculation forgot to include the fact that doubling CO2 in our atmosphere will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is indicative of cooling. In addition, as I have explained, the convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees C, There is no radiative greenhouse effect not even on Venus. The temperature at one bar in the atmosphere of Venus compared to the surface of the Earth can all be explained by how much closer Venus is to the sun then the Earth. The surface temperature is then a matter of the lapse rate and the depth of the atmosphere of Venus. Even though the atmosphere of Venus is more than 90 times as massive as that on earth and the amount of CO2 is more than 96%, there is no radiant greenhouse effect that has been detected on Venus If there were a radiant greenhouse effect on Venus then the surface should be a lot hotter than it actually is.

        What people do not realize is that molecule per molecule. H2O is a lot stronger absorber of IR radiation then is CO2 however a good absorber is also a good radiator. If CO2 were such a good insulator then one would think that there exists an example where these insulation properties has been put to use but no such examples exist. Actually air is a relatively poor thermal conductor but to take advantage of that quality one has to cut down on convection. That is how a lot of insulation used in clothing and buildings actually works. CO2 does not make this insulation work any better.

  4. There has to be a way to have “Climate Hustle” seen by a much larger audience. Most of the audience for the theater showing will be skeptics. The message has to break through the leftist media censorship and be seen directly by the actual target audience, the indifferent masses that don’t understand they are being played by politicians and opinion leaders.

    1. Watch… big media and hollywood types will try to shut down the distribution of the film. They’ll threaten to not use them if they show the film.

      I guarantee it… they’ll try to stop the film.

        1. Come to think of it no… I saw the film on YouTube a few years back and it solidified my already strong suspicion that catastrophic AGW is nonsense.

          But you’re right, back when I had cable I never saw it. And it’s not on NetFlix either.

  5. Typical of the MSM: “This is too important an issue to allow people to hear both sides and decide for themselves!”

  6. The Communists were lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
    They took up the “green” movement (whose “Earth Day” is Stalin’s birth day).
    Now the green-communists are striking out at real humans.
    They squeal like Little French School Girls until some liberal official sucks up to them.

    1. Let’s get the history right, ….As bad as the Greens are, Earth Day is April 22nd, and Joseph Stalin was born on December 18th, 1878. The fact that Deep Ecology ideology now substitutes for the class bigotry of Stalin’s “Socialist camp” as an excuse to grow government does not mean we can be as imprecise as they are in their “facts”.

  7. LOL Morano has really got the Warmunist thought controlling speech controlling language abusing lying law distorting nuts all wound up.

    Climate Depot shows that all the nonsense about extreme weather and CO2 is in fact nonsense.

    It shows how they have distorted the science and reality.

    Revisionism. Note how the Warmunists try change history to match their models.
    1 Models could not recreate the Mediaeval warming period so Mann tried to delete it after Jonathan Overpeck said they needed to “abolish” it or more accurately “stop the MWP being misused” because well, pointing out things were warmer at 200ppm, well that is apparently misusing the MWP

    The little ice age had to go because again, models cant recreate it with CO2, so again they tried to attempt to wipe that out, both in fact, LIA and MWP with Mann’s now utterly discredited Hockeystick, which as shown by Canadian researchers, produced a hockeystick no matter what just you put in, though it took them years to get Mann’s data because he said “he forgot where he put it”.

    Strangely, we’ve all worked stuff, and when you use the same data hierarchy for years, you remember where those files are for a decade after.

    Of course the author of this article will shut out all of the truth and say “denier”. Because if you can call someone a denier then it doesn’t matter what they say or prove. It’s the adult version of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “la la la la la”.

    If anyone even bothers to read old news papers, they will see report after report of events worse than today, going back almost 300 years in UK online old news.

    The Warmunists want you to forget anything before 1880, and NOAA have been altering the temperature record to make it match the CO2 curve, since 2001 after Hansen went ahead and changed the temp records for any country that had them, and then made the same change to the US temp record.

    NASA and GISS continue this lie.

    Facts. only half the earth is measured, most of the measuring stations are clustered in the US, nearly all warming in the US record is adjustments (admitted openly)

    Of that half with data, much data is estimated and infilled, as in there is a lot of data missing that is filled in by NOAA.

    All the data sets that are supposed to be independent? All come from the NCEI dataset, they are not independent at all.

    Note how the CRU Japan and US all had different records yet today they all match, they all changed and all changed tot he same result, collusion, possibly political and fraudulent, unless you are a warmunist.

    They delude themselves into thinking deleting inconvenient data (briffa’s chopped up reconstruction) is science, even though the authors did it to “not dilute the message” apparently, a political reason not a scientific one.

    This scam is failing fast, you know it when the other side get irrational and shouty, when you get like that you lose, and the RICO investigation witch hunts are yet another nail in the coffin because it is now known this was a Rockefeller led conspiracy to infringe on first amendment rights, a crime.

    Gore started planting his people everywhere in the 90s as VP and worked up cap and trade with Enron of all groups..

    Obama and his Chicago carbon exchange before he was president, see a pattern, and all backed by the “500m population” sorts like the UN, Ted Turner, Rockefeller foundation and the likes of Prince Philip, who is involved with so many environmentalist groups meanwhile people who started movements like Greenpeace, and David Bellamy, are now “deniers”.

    These nuts are dangerous, like the guy who went into Nat Geo with a gun recently, because they were not “reporting enough doom”

  8. Bill Nye, LolOL..OMG Say no more.. Any parent looking at him would be quickly moving their children to a safety zone.

    1. Apparently Nye came to TV fame via a Steve Martin look-alike competition.
      he was then a “scientist” in a sketch, the “science guy”.

      it stuck, he was made a TV character for a kids show. The bloke is a nitwit.

  9. The global warmers are threatening criminal and civil prosecution of global warming “deniers.” Can anyone think of an instance since Galileo was imprisoned for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun that the brute force of government was summoned to try to win a scientific debate?

    Liberals and leftists tend to be “ends justify the means” and support whatever tactics advance their political agenda.

    Dennis Prager said: “Liberty is not a value of the left.” For liberals for whom liberty is still a value, and whatever your position is on global warming, please consider whether you want a country where the government prosecutes people and companies who differ with government orthodoxy on any subject.

    If the government can prosecute global warming “deniers” today, who can and will the government prosecute tomorrow for their “thought crimes” and “speech crimes”?

  10. “IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer speaking in November 2010, advised that: ‘…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…’”

  11. “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 the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/climate-chief-world-economy/#ixzz3l5Kguo5i

    “This is a life-and-death struggle, and it’s not going to be finished in six months or even six years,” [Jerry Brown] said. The ultimate goal is to “change the very basis of our industrial economy, and I think we’re making tremendous progress.”

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/09/10/brown-gives-ground-on-climate-bill-but-vows-life.html

  12. I have worked in the Texas oil field for the last 14 years. I grew up in it. I see both sides to the coin. I’ve seen blow outs, large spills, people get killed,extremely bad injurys. But to say that fossil fuels have no impact on this small rock we find ourselves floating on is just ignorant. I am a life long learner. Science is all we have. It helps us make educated guesses to predict the future. It has shown us that everything is connected. The earth we live on is a massive living thing. With many complex systems that we still don’t fully understand. That’s the beauty of science. Most people where I live believe that climate change is left wing propaganda. The truth is in the data. You can believe all u want. But when the truth makes you question your beliefs, you can only question your beliefs not the truth. If you let conspiracy get in your way you never see the truth.

    1. You sound like some excited girl. It stopped warming in 1998. Phil Jones the world’s # 1 climatologist, was seen bragging about it in his 2005 email to John Christy, and then when it came out,

      he admitted it in his Feb 2010 BBC interview: he fabricated all the warming since 1998 because ”the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998.”

      The law of chemistry for solving temperature is not unable to calculate the temperature of air, as James Hansen told you. You can calculate the temperature of earth, mars, venus, just fine, using standard gas equations and there IS no ”green house effect” in CALCULATING temperature of any GAS or gas MIX, or atmospheric AIR.

  13. I bet the film will be broadcast on the unbiased BBC. (sarc)

    Marc Morano should send a free copy to all the secondary schools in Britain, like Al Gore did with his in 2006.
    ( Later banned in 2007, unless the nine factual errors were stated before viewing )

    I think the film should be nominated for an “Oscar” or two, like Al Gore’s.
    ( The unbiased Hollywood gave Al Gore’s, two. (sarc) )

  14. It makes sense that this issue has escalated to a censorship level. So many have so much credibility on the line promoting the bogus science of global warming hysteria. They are getting desperate and Stalin is looking good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
Close