Climate Hustle Coming to Theaters on May 2, The Debate is Just Beginning

By Elmer Beauregard

I had the privilege of going to D.C. to see the Premiere of Climate Hustle last week, all I can say is you must see this movie. Bring your friends, bring your enemies, bring your friend’s enemies. Especially if your friends enemies believe in Global Warming this movie will change there minds.

Climate Hustle produced by CFACT not only shows that Global Warming is a hoax and a scam but what’s great about Climate Hustle it shows that Global Warming is a joke. The audience was literally laughing at video clips of Al Gore and Prince Charles talking, it was almost as though they were stand up comedians. It’s like in the story of the Emperors New Clothes when the boy points out that the Emperor is naked and the crowd starts laughing.

Marc Morano is the star of the film and does a good job making us laugh as well. At one point he reenacts Al Gore’s famous elevator lift scene, sure it is a little cheesy but it totally worked in my opinion.

I think that humor is very important in a film like this, Michael Moore is an expert at it. If this movie was just charts and people talking the audience would fall asleep. Poking fun of the opposite side makes them look stupid (which isn’t hard to do) plus it makes people let down their guard and they become more open minded.

https://youtu.be/HglR49A00xA

Don’t get me wrong this movie is not a comedy it also has a lot of good information. Marc interviews climate scientists who used to believe in Global Warming but don’t anymore and how hard it’s been on their careers especially Judith Curry, her story is quite compelling.

The movie is coming to Minnesota for one night only so make sure you don’t miss it.

It will be in these theaters in Minnesota.

Carmike 15 – Apple Valley

Regal Cinemas AMC  Eagan 16 – Eagen

Eden Prairie Mall 18 – Eden Prairie

Elk River Cinema – Elk River

Lakes Cinema – Hermantown,

AMC Arbor Lakes 16 – Maple Grove,

Oakdale Cinema – Oakdale

Rosemount Cinema  – Rosemount

AMC Rosedale 14 – Rosedale

You can search and buy your tickets here.

  • Helen Steiner

    Oh really nice! I will definitely watch this movie with my family and my friends.. I am waiting for this movie! waiting for 2nd may! yes count down starts!
    helpdoassignment

    • John

      If your business helps children learn, you will do them much better service by teaching them the scientific method, how to think critically, and pointing them at resources which help explain scientific conclusions that are supported by reputable scientific institutions around the world.

      Use this movie as a teaching moment to demonstrate how industry interests and local politicians who have money to gain for their political use will do their best to distort and discredit well accepted scientific conclusions for their own gain.

      • aubrey

        Dear John:

        Thank you for providing patient, reasoned, and well-thought out discussion to the comments on a site such as this. I don’t claim to grasp the science half as well as you, but appreciate your efforts to inject substance and understanding of scientific theory to what to my mind should not even qualify as a ‘debate.’

        Even if you don’t change many minds, I am thankful for your attempts to reason in a sensible manner, using logic and the scientific process in lieu of vitriol and politics.

        Cheers!

        • Pretty sure it’s John’s full-time job.

          • aubrey

            lol, you might be correct!

          • John

            Hi Aubrey,

            Thank you so much for your nice comment above, it made my day!

            Actually, I may just need to cut down on my coffee a bit – I am passionate about science but this is just a hobby.

            Recently I heard that about 20% of Americans still do not think AGW is a reality. So although like you, I take it for granted, the fact is that tens of millions of others still don’t, and each of their votes counts as much as mine. So I made it a personal goal this year to try to get some of those people to think about the science and about why they hold the views they do.

            I enjoy participating in climate change discussions online, It is a good place to work on trying to clearly communicate my views and understanding. As a bonus, I often end up needing to do research to respond to questions or back up my thoughts, which is interesting as well as rewarding because it motivates me to learn more about it. I learned about carbon isotopes this week, how cool is that!

            Thanks again!

          • Common Sense

            What a bunch of nonsense comments. John G lays down 100% propaganda than someone thanks him for it. This site has been hijacked. No question about it.

  • John

    Save your money and skip this flick. If you are interested in this stuff for real, and want to learn more, go somewhere to get accurate information rather than this fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel sponsored politician supported pseudoscientific junk.

    Go instead to climate.nasa.com for the real deal about what burning fossil fuels is really doing to our environment.

    In other words, get educated not bamboozled.

    • John Larson

      Interesting. I like to get both sides of a debate. In your religious dogma, it sounds like you only want your “truth.”

      • John

        Good idea, when there is a real debate. But not in the case of a scientific theory that was fully developed 40 years ago, and continues to be ever more strongly backed up by facts and data. There is no active scientific debate going on regarding the global warming, climate change, and escalating sea level rise and acidification due to the human burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

        Even ExxonMobil is now advocating for reducing greenhouse gas emmissions (CO2 from burning fossil fuels and methane from natural gas extraction and delivery leaks). (After decades of funding groups whose main mission was to inject unjustified doubt into the public’s view about this issue).

        The fossil fuel industry and government ‘leaders’ from fossil fuel producing states are the overwhelming funders and defenders of the other side of the issue. If you want to get skeptical about something, think about what alterior motives the people in support of this pseudo-science movie are being driven by.

        • LouisD

          Emotion and out of context data is not science. ALL atmospheric CO2 contributes but 1/50th of the reason WWT (the current climate based on total eKv of the entire atmosphere) is 288°C>|0|. Without GGG’s the earths WWT = 280°C>|0|. Sins water vapor accounts for 98% of the RF gained eKv that contributes to the additional 8°C that represents current climate, CO2 in its entirety accounts for just about 1/1800th of total atmospheric eKv from all sources. Do the math. You can’t get to CO2 being of critical importance. It simply reflects climate change. Labeling scientists that refute CO2 as a significant Catylist of actual climate change as deniers, is an outright lie. We can know and teach that climates in fact change in geologic time frames rather regularly. We are not climate change deniers. We are hoax exposers and both the math and physics I laid out in my post is proof.

          • John

            Actually, I never called you a climate change denier, but perhaps I can help ease your mind about the term. There are two classes of people who do not agree that the climate science consensus-supported theory known as AWG (anthropogenic global warming) best explains the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, global average temperature rise, and sea level rise over the last two centuries.

            One of those groups truly does deny the climate is changing. They usually have religious beliefs that are in conflict with basic biology and climate sciences, and I suppose if one were to use the ‘climate change denier’ label ever, this group would seem to be the appropriate target.

            The other group denies (rejects?) one or more legs of the AGW theory. That could be, as you hinted, that CO2 concentrations are not rising, or that the CO2 increases are not from burning fossil fuels, or that CO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas (now that I think of it you hit all three of these today), or that global average temperatures of land, sea and air are not rising. A more accurate label for this group would be something like ‘AGW denier’, but that is unlikely to catch on. So should someone call you a climate change denier (I never did), you can translate that in your head to AGW denier, and you may feel less stressed about it. BTW, they are most likely just trying to avoid using a more accurate but more difficult term. Because whether you don’t believe it for religious or conspiracy reasons, you really are bucking some well understood and supported science. And the fact is fossil fuels are dirty, geopolitically disaterous, expensive, and finite, so we are going to have to get off them at some point anyway. So why not do it now, just in case AGW is real. (I do think it is, but you don’t). From what I’ve read, doing so will end up having all positive results: cheaper power, more choices, better health, fewer middle eastern wars, and reduction of AGW, if it exists, as a bonus.

        • olva63

          You are correct John, there is too much emotive and ideological discourse surrounding climate change. The media never presents a centrist perspective, only extremely polarized opinions. As it has been stipulated by others recently and in the past; more funding is needed to address the uncertainty that still underpins climate science. We know that the climate is changing and that humans are somehow involved in this as well. What we need to know is how much and what are the negatives and benefits. Everything else that is put out there at the moment as ‘fact’ is largely everything but factual. Too many pundits with axes to grind, pecuniary motives, ideologues, politicians and big business, are hijacking this important issue. There has never been a balanced debate about climate change. It has always been a partisan slinging match full of accusations and outlandish claims.

          • John G

            Thanks, but I must disagree with you about your claim that more study is needed. The theory of AGW was fully developed 40 years ago, and was based on 150 years of earlier studies about CO2 and greenhouse warming, and the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revilution.

            The measured and overwhelming conclusions of most climate scientists are that burning fossil fuels is increasing the CO2 in the air (from 280 parts per million 200 years ago to 400 ppm today), and that is causing a measurable increase in the average global temperature each year due to greenhouse effect warming, and that is accelerating the melting of polar and glacial ice and so increasing the rate of sea level rise (from 1mm/year rise 200 years ago to 3mm/year today, and increasing, to give us a 4 foot rise by the end of this century if we do not dramatically change our energy sources away from fossil fuels.

            I think this is the time for decisive action, not further waiting.

            Like Exxon and many economists, I think a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustments (to protect US manufacturing) is the most sensible and promising way to go.

          • Dylan

            The science is there, the people are not

      • jimbancroft

        it is all a total lie and they are going after exxon to make money and nothhing more
        their lie about the 97% is such falsehood it is akin to scientific fraud
        http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats

      • jimbancroft
    • Do not think outside the box, only believe what the Government tells you.

      • John

        That sounds dangerous!

        Better advice is to use the scientific method to learn how things work, and use critical thought, knowledge and skepticism to stay in the right track. Use multiple, well regarded sources for your information, and be watchful for information from those with a hidden agendas and ulterior motives.

        Do believe what the majority of scientists from around the world say is the most likely explanation for how things work. Sure, their theories need to be tweaked now and again, but it is shear hubris for any lay person to think they know more about an issue than the majority of scientists who study that issue.

        Take for example the scientific theory that human fossil fuel use is accelerating the warming of the planet, the rising of sea levels (current estimates predict a 4 feet rise in the next 80 years if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current pace), and many other problems that go along with increasing the CO2 concentration by 40% (which we have already managed to do in the last 150 years).

        Do you claim to be sure you know more about planetary science than NASA? If so, how sure are you? Because if we listen to you, and do nothing to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and you turn out to be wrong, you will have done more damage to human civilization than anyone before you in the history of mankind.

        • LouisD

          Yes but you haven’t explained then, why CO2 at a level of 1/40th the weight and 1/50th the RF eKv of Atmospheric water is driving climate change when historic and paleoclimatology clearly show it never has before. Water by volume within A is 50x as powerful a GHG at storing latent kinetic energy as CO2. Why isnt water the real culprit her? Could it be because you are as clueless as a rock?

          • John

            ‘Could it be because you are as clueless as a rock?’

            What is it that makes you respond in such a way to someone’s reasoned and moderate response to your original pithy response? The Internet is your sandbox, don’t mess it up, cat.

            I am quite overwhelmed at the level of conspiratorial thinking on which you base your understanding and personal CO2 and climate hypothesis. Until now, I had never heard anyone try to argue about what CO2 concentrations were 100 years ago. If you are that far gone that you think science can not accurately determine what CO2 concentrations were 100 years ago I doubt we have much room to work with here. That is documented in many published papers and backed up by real repeatable science and data. It is easy to come up with a conspiracy theory, much less so to prove it with data from multiple sources and get scientific agreement that you have uncovered a new truth. Good luck with that – don’t bother trying to convince me, you should get your ideas published in a peer-reviewed journal and change the world’s view about AGW if you are so sure about it.

            But you might instead want to consider the facts that humans are digging/pumping about 10 billion metric tons (give or take a few) of carbon (in the form of fossil fuels) out of the ground, burning it and as a result releasing about 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year (give or take a few), and have been for decades. If you plot the last 20 years of CO2 concentrations you can see a few ppm rise each year on average. You could not go back too many hundred years, subtracting a few ppm each year, before you hit zero, so you must admit even this simple example shows CO2 is increasing in concentration. There is a good summary of the CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

            Regarding your other off-the-beaten track hypothesis that the CO2 is coming from the warming of the ocean, it just doesn’t make sense either. In the first place, why would the changes you describe be all of a sudden happening so quickly, and so in sync with CO2 increases, and yet you don’t attribute them to the CO2 we know we are adding to the atmosphere. It seems unreasonable to see these simple facts in front of you, and yet be grasping at unlikely explanations in order to deny the obvious.

            In the above link you will also find another comment that supports from another angle the additional CO2 is coming from burning fossil fuels:

            Tom Curtis at 16:27 PM on 27 August, 2013
            “YubeDude @250, there is not one isotope, but two.

            First, C14 is a radioactive isotope with a short half life (5730 years) as a result of which C14 is effectively undetectable in carbon sources more than 50 thousand years old (at which stage it has fallen to 0.2% of its original value. Because of that, fossil fuels are almost completely devoid of C14, as are volcanic emissions. The very rapid decline in C14 in the atmosphere since the onset of large scale combustion of fossil fuels shows that the source of the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 is devoid of C14, and therefore does not come from recent vegetation, or the ocean.

            Second is C13. C13 is a stable isotope of carbon, that does not increase or decrease in quantity with age. It is heavier than C12, however, as a result of which many plants will take up proportionally more CO2 with a C12 isotope than with a C13 isotope. The result is that carbon from organic matter, including fossilized organic matter in the form of fossil fuels, is deficient in C13. The decline in the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere since the large scale combustion of fossil fuels shows the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 to come primarilly from an (originally) organic source, ie, from vegetation or from fossil fuels.

            Taking the information from both isotopes, we see that the increased CO2 cannot come from modern vegetation because of the decreasing C14 concentration, and that it also cannot have come from volcanoes because the decreasing C13/C12 ratio. The only possible source that explains both trends is fossil fuels. Ergo, the increased CO2 concentration is a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.”

          • zigzzagz

            Sorry John, you lose. It’s telling that your argument is lacking in that you attack the poster more than the argument.
            Rises in CO2 do not actually drive global warming. CO2 rises in consequence of other factors that cause warm periods and actually track perfectly, about a decade later the actions of the sun which are the true cause of natural temperature change. Advance this video to 28:02 to see this explained and even proven by the graph used climatological reverend Al Gore in his own climate change church revival travelling show.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

            When you’re done come back with more than “oil companies contributed money to the production”, if they so did. Because that argument doesn’t refute facts or the university researchers, scientists, climatologists etc interviewed here.

          • John G

            Re-read my post, and the preceding one mine was in response to. The other poster was he rude one, and I called him out on it. I agree with your idea that people with no valid support for their side often resort to personal aggression and rudeness in an attempt to bully their way to dominance.

            Warming leads to CO2 rise, as has happened many times in the past. And CO2 leads to warming, which is why the warming from Melankovich cycles were amplified enough to start and stop ice ages every 100,000 years for the last million years or so.

            Far more university researchers, scientists, and climate scientists support the theory of AGW than those who dont. In fact it’s about 97% to 3% in favor of AGW. All the major scientific organizations that have released a statement about it agree: humans are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and that is changing the energy balance of the Earth and causing warming, and some of the excess is being absorbed in to the oceans and that is reducing the pH, which is starting to harm sea life. The warming is causing major changes in the Earth’s climate, and it will continue to get worse the more CO2 we produce by burning more fossil fuels.

          • Sonnys_Mom

            Thank you for this review. Unfortunately, facts never matter to the Soros Troll Army.

          • zigzzagz

            Anything Soros is involved in is suspect, if not outright corrupt. There has never been a single individual so determined to manipulate the world into his vision for it. Look at his leaked DNC emails where he discusses how to undermine the traditional morality of Russia now that his Open Society NGO has been kicked out. I can’t understand why every country doesn’t do the same with this evidence of the purposeful manipulation of countries. What an evil, evil man. He’s like a one man illuminate brigade.

        • TraceSkipper

          How come you keep talking about the fossil fuel industry being deceptive? First off there is no alternates to fossil fuel to power a nation except coal or nuclear energy. Second and final; no one is going stop making and using oil b/c its the only energy we have (besides coal and nuclear energy).

          So in my conclusion the ff industry doesnt have to a damn thing b/c there nothing else out there.

          • John G

            The fact that there are not a lot of energy options other than fossil fuels today is not a mistake, and is not due to some technological roadblock that prevented the evolution of other solutions. I believe it is due to a few factors that fall under the umbrella of manipulation of politics and consumer choices by the powerful fossil fuel industry:

            1. Big oil has worked for a century with the automobile industry to limit personal transportation options. Those industries have both thrived on the use of the internal combustion engine to power vehicles. Oil because they can power it, and Auto because they make a lot of money servicing it. Check out the movie documentaries ‘Who Killed the Electric Car’ and ‘Pump’ for a general summary of why we have the limited choices for transportation that we do, thanks to the efforts of those two industries to limit consumer choices in order to maximize profits.

            2. A number of state’s Attorneys General are looking into what Big Oil knew about climate change from CO2 from fossil fuels and the activities of those companies in the last 40 years to promote doubt and confusion about AGW. I’ve done a lot of reading about global warming and it is clear to me that 40 years ago the science about AGW was solid and accepted, and yet Exxon and others decided to actively promote doubt about it to delay action on it. Momentum for change has been stalled a number of times since then. Exxon and Koch have spent hundreds of millions, probably billions, promoting false research, misleading communications, political contributions and lobbying to keep the status quo going. I am interested in seeing the facts uncovered by these cases.

            3. The total cost of using fossil fuels is not included in the price of the fuel. First, the US is giving billions of dollars in tax breaks to fossil fuel companies despite the fact that they make some of the biggest profits in the world. This is industry money and Congress at work. Second, the enormous costs to society of the pollution (particulates, NOX, sulfur, toxic chemicals in the ground and water, and big one – CO2 released into the atmosphere) are for the most part not included in the costs of the fuel. Instead, society is paying for the resulting health care, lost productivity, and for the effects of global warming and climate change caused by human fossil fuel use. After Big Tobacco got away with hiding the truth and making people sick with cancer for decades, the law finally caught up with them and finally they have had to pay for some of the known downstream costs of their products. That has reduced the use of those products due to higher prices, and reduced the number of people suffering the consequences and associated costs to society for care. Fossil fuel companies have avoided having to pay similarly for their downstream costs so far.

            I have always been interested in science and technology, ecology, microbiology, cosmology and physics. I work in a technical field. Given the right incentives, society can use the power of science and technology to do amazing things. I believe that given the right inducements, the free market could have provided us with many good options if that had been the goal over the last 40 years. In other words, after the oil crisis in the 1970s exposed the fragility of our economy due to our dependence on foreign oil, and the realization that pollution needed to be dealt with, the US could had made a serious commitment in research and development in alternative energy options. And in the 1980s, when the science of anthrogenic climate change became clear, if we had stopped giving tax breaks to fossil fuel industry and instead put in place something like a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend to gradually ease the transition to other energy options, we would be off fossil fuels now, and the cool technology we currently have in smart phones would also be present in how we generate, store and use power. I believe the monopolistic power of the fossil fuel industry has been used to prevent doing that.

            Now that we have reached a critical point in our biosphere the fossil fuel industry can no longer blind society to the truth. But it is very late to start to think about making the huge changes that need to be made thanks to the fossil fuel industry and the politicians and lobbiests they have payed up to now to prevent progress.

            I believe that we need to act now to ensure that 20 years from now we do have a lot of good options. A revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend is the best idea I have found that would make that happen. The faster we get it in place the sooner other options will be developed. These will easily turn out to be healthier and even cheaper than fossil fuels over time, because science and technology will be put to work creating them rather than on the polluting methods our energy infrastructure focuses on now of extraction, transportation and combustion of coal, oil and gas. Though Exxon claims publicly to support such a measure, there is still an awful lot of dark money going to support opposition to change.

            Oh, and by the way, even today there really are some pretty good options. Solar PV on roofs work very well, hybrids and electric cars in the next few years will get quite good, and wind and geothermal work today in many places.

          • TraceSkipper

            Killing 4 or 5 billion people is probably easier then eliminating fossil fuels. In other words once fossil fuels die out a lot of people are going to resort to eating each then starve to death. Pretty picture.

          • John G

            Fossil fuels have been dead a long time already.

            I don’t think replacing them with better energy solutions will be nearly as difficult as committing to replace them has been.

          • TraceSkipper

            Yeah about 50 millions years ago its called ancient sunlight.

          • John G

            That sounds like a lot of home work on a three day weekend. Maybe someone else can figure that one out for us?

            In the meantime, I’m guessing there is plenty of surface area humans have already covered (parking lots, roads, roofs, etc) as well as areas that could be covered with very little environmental impact (desserts, small fields, etc), that would give us enough surface area to work with. As solar panels become more efficient less space will be needed to generate the same energy. My guess is we could use that for electric and powering battery needs, and fill in the gaps with things like geothermal, wind, and new technologies as they are discovered, and meet everyone’s needs in a few decades if we start now.

          • zigzzagz

            I’m all for having a cleaner environment. I strongly approved of that. We don’t need a “man made climate hoax” to do that, and the evidence I see from both sides has me leaning strongly toward hoax.
            The standard reply of the pro climate change group is too attempt to nullify research by attempting to attach it to oil money. This doesn’t refute the research even if there is in fact oil money attached to some of it. Pro C.C. research has a huge cash flow from government and NGO’s, and this shouldn’t immediately refute their research either. I do see more and more climatologists and related field research scientists falling away from the pro C.C. side, and others who have said they have seen their own names on lists of science C.C. believers when they were not even of a pro or even a fixed position on the subject.
            One of my greatest concerns is that some of those scientists who are anti C.C., particularly the vocal ones have had the climate change cabal actively work to destroy their careers. This is a very bad sign of “something rotten in Denmark” for me. This pushing of the position that “the facts are in, we say it is so, and no one may dissent.” Anyone with merely a BA in science knows this is a bugger of a breach of scientific procedure, and career assassination magnifies that beach well into the realm of highly suspicious.
            Also there is some very good evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature change but the rise in CO2 follows this change as seen in the graphs Al Gore himself uses. Check this clip from 28 minutes in.

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

          • John G

            The science is strongly in favour of the theory of AGW, and the consensus of climate scientists has been clearly demonstrated.

            I watched your movie a few months ago, and just re-watched a few minutes around 28:00. In general found sitting through the whole thing difficult to do, because of the over-production, sarcastic attitude throughout and the obviously misleading representations of data that I am quite familiar with.

            I also did some research about the weather predictor interviewed around 29:00, Piers Corbyn. He is not a climate scientist, but treated like one in the movie. His hypothesis of the Sun controlling all of climate has been considered and discarded by most climate scientists. Here is an interesting background of his hypothesis and the (lack of) success of it:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/24/piers-corbyn-other-rebel-in-the-family-jeremy-corbyn-climate-change

            The fact is, most climate scientists agree that of all the factors that do affect the Earth’s climate, the CO2 we have added and are adding from burning fossil fuels is now the driving force. It is more significant than any other factor. All others have been considered, measured, and tested, and although they always play some part, it has been determined that the CO2 concentration of 400ppm is overwhelming all the other factors. (In fact, the natural factors by themselves would see the Earth on a very slow cooling trend that started 6000 years ago and dropped global average temperature by about 1 degree F in that time. We have heated up the earth by 1.5 degrees F in just the last 150 years, and most of that in the last 40.

            You should watch information from both sides as well, then make up your mind. A few I recommend are:

            How the fossil fuel industry has spread doubt about established science:

            https://youtu.be/pDgJ0eEbdng

            Who is taking money from the fossil fuel industry, and why:

            https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

            The science from a reluctant climate scientist turned advocate:

            https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8

            The logic of accepting there is a big risk of a very bad outcome, and what to do about it:

            https://youtu.be/TKt9ouoGvj0

          • zigzzagz

            Science is not done by consensus, you realise this yes? You can’t vote a theory into a physical law in science. At one time there was a 100 percent census that the world was flat. Secondly, this “consensus” you speak of, is no consensus at all. There has not been any comprehensive poll, if that even mattered.

          • John G

            Zzz, I’m not sure if you are being serious or not. The evolution of a scientific theory does not happen over night. Scientific consensus is not a popularity poll.

            The theory of human-caused global warming, climate change, sea level rise acceleration, and ocean acidification from fossil fuel use has evolved over almost 200 years of scientific investigation, from many unrelated lines of inquiry.

            Your opininions on scientific consensus are not coming from scientists, but from false news sites and shills of the fossil fuel industry.

            Check out the history here:

            http://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm

            And check out this decent explanation of the difference in popular consensus and scientific consensus:

            https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean/?client=ms-android-verizon

            Don’t let your affinity to using energy close your mind to science or lead you to be afraid of changing where your energy comes from.

            The carbon fee and dividend solution to move us off fossil fuels and into a clean energy future will help nearly everyone, in a way that protects our buying power, using free market forces to get the job done.

            http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

          • zigzzagz
          • John G

            Maybe you didn’t bother clicking on the link to the paper I referred to. To save you the trouble and possible repeated mistake, here is the abstract from it for you. The question us, what part of the scientific inquiry about the consensus view do you think is wrong? (This is a published, peer reviewed scientific study about this subject. It’s results match those done by other groups using other methods.)

            “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    • TraceSkipper

      I watched the global warming shakedown on youtube and it had only mainstream scientists. If they have doubt about global warming then its time to sit down and debate.

      • John G

        Why would 97 out of 100 climate scientists want to debate the other 3 who disagreed with their understanding of the data? Science is not a debate anyway, it is a progression of ideas that have originated and been been proven to be a reasonable explanation by data and testable assertions. Go to climate.nasa.org/evidence to get the real information, not a fossil fuel sponsored movie produced to continue injecting confusion into the public’s understanding of the issue.

        • TraceSkipper

          So if you say that ‘confirmed testable assertions’ and ‘peer review ‘ and other words why do you disagree about climate debate? B/cyou’reanasshole? But lets look at 97/100 agree on climate warming myth. Wait why dont you read it yourself – http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

          • John G

            Why do you use disrespectful language at someone with whom you disagree with? It shows a certain lack of class, and does not add in the least to any discussion.

            I can only see the first page of this WSJ commentary (I cancelled my subscription shortly after the paper was taken over by Rupert Murdoch a number of years ago because of the shift in time to more of a Fox News slant.

            Anyway, the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about the data and conclusions about the effects that burning 10 billion tons of fossil fuels each year is having and will have in the future has been supported by a number of follow-up studies.

            See my recent response to eric m for some of them.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Thirty thousand scientists sued Al Gore for lying.

          • John G

            I’m not familiar with that suit. Details?

            Did you know that Al Gore is not a climate scientist?

            Are you a climate scientist?

            If not, why don’t you believe what the vast majority of them say is happening?

          • Katherine McChesney

            Al Gore is just a hoax artist and a liar.

          • John G

            I’m not defending Al Gore. I am saying 97% of active climate scientists and all the major scientific organizations of the world agree that the burning of fossil fuels is the dominant factor affecting the Earth’s climate now. If not for us, the Earth would still be very gradually cooling, on its way in tens of thousands of years to the next ice age. It started cooling about 8000 years ago, and dropped about 1℉ since then. Then we started burning fossil fuels in quantities measured in billions of tons, and in the last 150 years have raised the average global temperature by 1.7 ℉.

            CO2 accumulation in the air:
            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

            Temperature rise:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            How we can use market forces to transition off fossil fuels in a few decades while protecting our wallets and helping the economy:

            Carbon Fee and Dividend

            http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

          • Katherine McChesney

            GloBULL warming is a lie of Satan.

          • John G

            Religion is a powerful way to stay centered in thinking about others before oneself, and fulfills a strong human desire to belong to a group. It is not , however, a solid foundation on which to base your understanding of how physics works.

            Give your heart to religion, but let your head be your guide to the practical matters of how to be a good steward of what we have here on Earth.

            We’ve increased CO2 in the air by almost 50% by burning fossil fuels. Most of that in the last several decades. It takes about 100 years for all the warming from added CO2 to be reflected in average global temperatures. In total we can expect to get about 3℉ from what we’ve already done. Which means the 1.5℉ warmining we’ve seen so far is about half of what we can expect to see in total from the fossil fuels we’ve already burned. The earth will continue to warm for several more decades as that happens.

            Do you think it is responsible to continue burning fossil fuels, given that doing so is known to change conditions on Earth so much that even now species are going extinct, and severe droughts, heatwaves and flooding events are increasing the suffering of the poor around the world?

            The lies are coming from the profit-motivated, sociopathic fossil fuel industry, which have mislead you to believe global warming is a hoax. Check out these to resources to clear your head of that evil, and then reach out and see how you and your church can help make a difference for good.

            Exxon: the road not taken:
            https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

            Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt:
            https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

        • zigzzagz

          John G. This 97 percent you speak of is hogwash. Why don’t you look into how that number was come to. Secondly, science is never done by consensus.

          • John G

            I have done that, and provided you some links in other replies. Why don’t you read the papers i linked to, or at least the abstracts, and then respond in those threads?

    • CB

      “go somewhere to get accurate information rather than this fossil fuel industry supported and fossil fuel sponsored politician endorsed pseudoscientific junk.”

      Exactly.

      Only someone profoundly self-destructive would credulously believe an industry that tells them their product is safe and ignore the scientists who tell them it’s not.

      “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife.”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

      “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

      • jimbancroft
        • CB

          “lets all believe the lie”

          No thank you.

          You are linking to a well-known liar and prostitute for the fossil fuel industry.

          Why are you doing that?

          Do you not care if anyone takes you seriously?

          “Lawrence Solomon was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.”

          http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomon

          “several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming… Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011.”

          http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

          • zigzzagz

            Are you a paid ngo climate cabal shill?

          • CB

            “Are you a paid ngo climate cabal shill?”

            Nope! This thread is cashed, sweet pea. See me on a fresher one to continue your therapy.

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

      • zigzzagz

        So. Oil gives funding to lay out the facts against global warming, and the government and private ngo’s give funding to those who are willing to support global warming. What the climate change religionists like to do with this is point to exxon funding as if this funding somehow refutes any evidence gained by the research. It does not. On the other hand those researchers and labs who do research to support climate change receive government and ngo funding while those who do not have their careers actively destroyed by the climate change cabal.
        What we do without question see is many scientists who formerly supported climate change, reversing their positions. We are also seeing that other climatologists have had their works and names used to support climate change even though they in fact do not.
        We also know that the polar ice caps are growing and are larger now than they were over 100 years ago and this is irrefutable. We also know that there are shills paid by ngo’s to go to climate warming debunking sites such as this. Are you one of them?

    • jimbancroft

      what a completely false statement, especially when you most likely never even investigated the lies about the false religion of climate change

    • jimbancroft
      • John G

        Hi Jim,

        This is the third reference you have given to a blog or opinion commentary rather than a scientific study that proves anything using the scientific method. I suggest you add to your sources of reference some nationally or internationally accepted scientific institutions in order to increase the hit rate of accurate, unbiased information. Here are a few you can start with:

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        skepticalscience.com

        https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html

        But since this current comment uses a blog/biased source, I will do the same to discredit that source before turning to the issue it raised. Check this one out:

        http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/notrickszone-review-too-many-tricks-in.html?m=1

        Regarding the article you provided, it does not provide the needed context to learn anything about the one fact it provides: specifically, 240 out of how many papers in total, and what were the criteria used to determine the opinion of each.

        Browsing through the list I found some of them that seemed to have nothing to do with internal Earth climate or warming (e.g. Gopalswamy, 2016 – http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40562-016-0039-2 – which only discused how CMB affects weather in space). And many that evaluate various factors that affect various aspects of the Earth’s climate but I found none that make any direct comparison between the effects they focused on compared to the effects of CO2 levels and the global average temperatures seen in the last several thousand years.

        This list of 240 papers seems to consist of some good science, maybe some not so good, but has nothing that I found that puts any serious proposal of a cause or group of causes of the change in global average temperatures we’ve seen in the last couple hundred years compared with the last several thousand that are easily explained by the changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

        From Buzz Flegerdon:

        We have known for nearly 100 years that the earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels will warm the planet by about 3°C. This is called “equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).” There have been many dozens of methods used to validate ECS and all these methods statistically center around that same figure of 3°C. On a business-as-usual emissions pathway we will likely double atmospheric concentrations of CO2 twice over preindustrial levels. That means something along the lines of 4.5 to 6°C of warming by the middle of the 2100’s. This is about 10,000 times faster than the natural rate of change on this planet. Such rapid changes in the deep past coincide with mass extinction events.

        How to put the world’s energy system on course to replace fossil fuels for the most part within 20 years without changing the way we live or hurting the economy? Pretty easy actually, pass a bill to put a price on carbon that reflects the downstream negative costs to society and return the money collected equally to all households:

        https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

    • jimbancroft
      • John G

        This is an article about a single Apollo astronaut’s opinions. He apparently does no science related to climate change, and also obviously does not understand the most basic tenets of the theory of how CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse warming effect on a planet.

        His misunderstandings of the issues are at such a basic level I had trouble deciding whether or not he was joking about his ideas. For instance, he claims that an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 400 ppm is low, as proven by some random facts about how high CO2 concentrations are allowed on things like submarines. Is this a joke? I think it must be, since he is comparing a concentration that is acceptible for people to breath, with a concentration that traps a given amount of heat on the Earth. The arrival is full of unrelated comparisons like that.

        Do yourself a favor and spend some time with some real science, not some random guys unsubstantiated and rather bizarre personal misunderstandings.

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        skepticalscience.org

        Check out some movies like ‘Pump’ and ‘Who killed the electric car’ for some opinionated entertainment that is at least based on the truth and not trying to make you less aware of your world and the influencers in it.

    • jimbancroft

      an explanation on why the lie about the 97% of climate scientists is pure hogwash and a total fabrication and fraud
      http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats

      • John G

        That ‘explanation’ is silly. It only talks about one study, and makes even more assumptions than it accuses the real study of doing. There have been many different studies done, and all generally come in at around 97% if they focus on actual active climate scientists. See here for a few pointers:

        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/pj-media/the_gop_strikes_back_against_climate_change_fascism/#comment-2757710741

        Here is an abstract of one recent study, for example:

        “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    • Mike Rights

      Oh yeah nasa doesn’t lie at all! Woah almost fell out of my chair. NASA is the govt. all they do is lie and spin. When is the last time the government did something good for the benefit of the people. They all enrich themselves while ignoring our demands and killing brown people all over the world

      • John G

        When was the last time NASA did anything good for the benefit of all the people you ask? Why not ask what good is science? Or, what good is logic and reason?

        Do you believe we got some men to the moon? Some people do not. Do you believe burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the short-term carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse gas warming force and thus the average global temperatures as well as the acidification of the oceans? Some people do not. Do you believe doing so is causing changes in the climate of the Earth, and it will continue to get worse if we continue to burn fossil fuels? Some people do not. Do you believe there is a robotic satellite just recently put in orbit around Jupiter (Juno) to do some cool science on that planet and it’s moons for the next couple years?

        If no to any of those, you are using unreliable sources for your information – they are most likely spinning the facts in order to deceive you into supporting some big corporate direction, or maybe they just like getting the ad dollars from your viewing time. Either way you are being used.

        • Mike Rights

          No it’s all bs. Co2 isn’t pollution. But glyphosate is. The moon is out of reach. The govts lie. Come on this is elementary

    • Sonnys_Mom

      Oh right, NASA– the federal agency whose mission Obama repurposed into “making Muslims feel better about their technological achievements”. That is, when they’re not busy “adjusting” 30 year old world temperature data to support the climate change myth.

      • John G

        See my response to Mike Rights on this, he is as equally misinformed and negatively biased against NASA as you are.

        NASA is not a scientific outlier, just the opposite. NASA’s statement about AGW is the same as that of all the other major scientific organizations and socieities around the world. Multiple independent lines of evidence produces scientific consensus.

        Here are 200 more scientific organizations in addition to NASA that have made a public statement about the risks of AGW, and the fact that we need to address the problem immediately:

        http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

        Can you produce a single major scientific organization that has a statement that is counter to that? I think not, because to my knowledge none have.

        Rather than listen to biased, manipulative information that are produced to get you to think a certain way, you should expand your sources of information to include unbiased scientifically based sites. Fox News, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh and similar sources are clouding your own independent thinking. Just look who is promoting this movie: politicians that get a lot of money and votes for promoting fossil fuels, and CFACT, an organization funded by Koch and ExxonMobil through shadow sources (Doners’ Trust, etc) to promote their products.

    • zigzzagz

      George? That you George Soros?

    • Exactly, Climate Change is Real.. But are Folks going to give up their car and start walking??

      • John G

        Of course not. But if that were the only option other than killing 50% of the species on Earth and a sea level rise of up to 18 feet by the end of the century, would you consider giving up your car?

        The reality is we have about two decades left before we tip the scales beyond our ability to greatly reduce the damage we are doing. That is enough time to make a change now and let society work for those twenty years to get off of fossil fuels.

        Here is the best way I’ve heard to do just that:

        Carbon Fee and Dividend: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend

        Climate Change from burning fossil fuels is real. What do you propose we do about it?

  • LouisD

    I really get chapped over the LEFT’s new use of the word climate change deniers. Quite technically that means people, and especially scientists or scientifically educated people of specific opinions who would for some reason deny that climate changes. Inasmuch as I doubt there is any actual scientist or educated person of science that believes such nonsense as “totally static climate” it would seem the left has left themselves a gruesome and impossible wormhole to navigate. Such ignoramuses with IQ’s akin to Michael Mann of fraudulent Hockey Stick fame, willingly pass sentence on those of us who simply do not buy into the hypothesis that CO2 is a climate forcing agent of any consequence.

    To be succinct and accurate, neither I or any actual person that believes the CO2 SCARE is anything but a ridiculous hoax, absolutely believe climate changes. Heck, we would not even be discussing climate change and looking for a reason (CO2 being the pet left villain) if it wasn’t changing. Since we all have taken note of the fact climate doe change and has in many ways over 4.6 billion years, we cannot possibly be pigeon-holed into the category of climate change deniers now can we? Climate change is not the subject. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the stupid and mathematically unsound hypothesis that it forces climate change (warming) in what we are concerned about. Why? because it is so easily proven the hoax here.

    Rather than bore you all with the details as i agree with the tenants of this web site almost in its entirety, I will summarize by suggesting the reader do a little simple math on his/her own. Step one, get a periodic table of elements so you can use the table for atomic weights common to the principle constituents of atmosphere. Here are some hard constants based on the Table and on published IPCC figures that will matter to your own investigation of how ridiculous the CO2 overheating model really is (numbers reasonably rounded):

    H {Hydrogen} has an atomic weight of 1
    C {Carbon} has an atomic weight of 12
    N {Nitrogen} has an atomic weight of 14
    O {Oxygen} has an atomic weight = 16

    N2 makes up almost 79% of the (A) atmosphere. Atomic weight = 28.14

    O, O2 & O3 (ozone) makes up about 20.5% of the (A). Atomic Weight is =31.998

    H2O makes up about 4% of the Atmosphere (all oxygen is counted as part of the

    O~O3 reservoir above so the total of all gases does not actually exceed 100%. Water is a subset of trace gas Hydrogen combined with O2. Water molecules have an approximate atomic weight of 18.

    CO2 are large molecules with an atomic weight of 44 (244% the size of one water molecule). This is a really crucial ratio because each ppm of CO2 is 2.011 X as powerful at RFeKv meaning the RF(forcing) of stored kinetic energy that is above surrounding other gasses. Unfortunately AGW Hoaxers stop right there and remind us all that CO2 is twice as powerful an RF agent at storing kinetic energy than water….except it’s not accurate when you compare actual equal quantities of CO2 and Water. Equality is not measured by 1:1 ppm ratios. Equality is measured by equal mass at constant temperature weights for a given gas at static pressure.

    Since it takes 2.44 Water Molecules to equal just one CO2 molecule by weight, one can deduce that WATER by equal weight to CO2 (2.44 X 1)/2.011 actually stores 121.333 % of the AeKv as CO2. But wait, the AGW hoaxers are always saying CO2 is twice as dangerous a GHG as water. Except their argument isn’t based on equal amounts (= weight). So water is a fifth again+ more powerful as an RF forcing agent for storing excess AeKv than CO2 when equal quantities are evaluated.

    But take that a step further. H2O is 100 ppm for every 1 PPM of CO2 floating in the atmosphere below five miles. Therefore by weight, water is about 40 x as plentiful as CO2. Since water is 21% more powerful than CO2 by weight at capturing and retaining eK, it means that water is roughly 50 x more important than all the CO2 as a GHG. Man’s contribution to the total annual CO2 cycle is miserably small, around 6%. but lets just concentrate on the raw CO2 numbers. Water is 50 x more powerful as an eK agent within the atmosphere than CO2.

    But the reason climate is even warm goes far beyond that. Consider the majority of the atmosphere, roughly 96+% is non RF (transparent) O2 and N2. But AGW alarmists have ignored the basic physics of thermodynamics of the earth’s surface thermal mass and it’s ability to push an equilibrium of stasis on the remaining 96+% of the atmosphere. O2 and N2 would still be about 280 deg C < |0| (absolute zero) if NO GHG's existed on the planet. The work of providing 97.4% of the atmosphere's warmth is simply a byproduct of thermodynamic heat transfer from a black-body thermal mass surface (i.e., oceans, landmasses & botanical mass). Air's main constituents of N2 and O2 while not immediately or directly heated by the sun, are heated to within 97.4% of all AeKv simply by being present as a part of the earth-sun system. The sun heats the water, land and biomass, which in turn heats the surface air even if all water vapor and CO2 were scrubbed out of the entire atmospheric system.

    Water accounts for let's round off, 49/50th's of the reason the earth is 8 degrees C warmer than the prior calculation. Therefore we can assume that about 98% of the REMAINING 2.6% OF TOTAL AeKv present in the atmosphere above what is already present in the N2-O2 reservoir, is gained from GHG H2O. That means that only 2% of 2.6% of climate is even determined by CO2 excitation and RFeKv.
    Put it simply, CO2 has about a 1/1800th impact on why the earth has a climate above absolute zero energy state (AeKv = |0|).

    CO2 AS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED CANNOT BE A SIGNIFICANT CLIMATE FORCING AGENT. This has been proven using the IPCC's own variable assumptions on RFeKv for H2O vs CO2, and known constants for atmospheric chemistry.

    • John

      First you complain about people using the label ‘climate change denier’. Later in the same comment you use the equally emotionally charged and derogatory moniker ‘AGW alarmist’. Please try to be more consistent – either have a thick skin and take what you give, or be as sensitive to others as you wish them to be sensitive to you.

      Then you provide your scientfic theory. A chat board is not the usual venue for publishing scientific peer reviewed articles. Allow me to do a little review, and though I am not a climate scientist, I could go on for pages…

      Mankind has added over 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, when we started burning fossil fuels in quantity. We have raised it to a level where it now makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Which doesn’t sound like much until you consider the size of the Earth’s atmosphere. It actually translates to about 3 trillion metric tons of the stuff. Remember, 40% of that was added by us. It takes decades or centuries for added concentrations to be naturally reduced. We release an additional 35 billion metric tons a year by burning fossil fuels, 30% of which adds to the increasing total because the natural system is unable to remove all of what we add each year.

      Raising average global temperatures by increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas is a well established scientific theory. An increase in global temperatures triggers many known positive feedback loops which add still more warming forces, such as an increase in water vapor and in other greenhouse gasses such as methane, from melting permafrost, as well as more absorption of solar energy at the poles due to polar ice loss reducing the reflectivity of sunlight.

      What would you rate your Turkey’s chance of being right, compared to that of real scientists doing real science, using the real scientific process to publish their results? Given that you certainly can not be sure you are 100% right and the 97% of publishing climate scientists are wrong (remember science requires keeping an open mind), does your level of uncertainty warrant doing nothing to try to prevent the predicted problems from AGW?

      • Dylan

        John wins!

        • Common Sense

          are you kidding? John G replied to every single comment urging people to not watch a movie that he hasn’t watched and then points them to NASA… you do realize John G that people from NASA have quit cause they didn’t agree with the BS that the organization puts out right?

          Clearly this guy is a dissenter spreading propaganda. He admits he isn’t a scientist but he spends all his time urging everyone to not watch opposing information. No person without an agenda does that.

          • John G

            My role here is simple, I do this for personal reasons – I am not paid. I only urge people to follow science and their common sense:

            – Science is powerful. It needs to be well understood by the majority so it’s power can be managed carefully using the precautionary principle.

            – Everyone can tell when they are being manipulated.

            The terms you use are frequently heard in relation to schemes like this movie. ‘Dissenter’. ‘Spreading propaganda’. It’s like in Orwell’s 1984, when the power uses the opposite terms to describe what they are doing. Quite an effective manipulative trick, but eventually people see through it back to the messenger. How many people look at smoking as a ‘freedom of choice’ issue these days?

            Regarding this movie…. I read about it in this article, including how it was funded, who produced it, and who is promoting it. See some of my above comments. This movie is not science, and not based on science. It is a political and marketing piece created by a biased group of people to lead other people astray. I actually considered going to it for kicks, but decided I did not want to support this effort with any of my own money. I know Marc Morano and Sarah Palin’s views on this subject. They do not rely on the studies and opinions of the same 97% of the world’s climate scientists that I do for my AWG information.

          • Robert

            Thanks! Great response! I hope many read and take those important points as a way to move their thinking forward.

          • Common Sense

            John G you are a paid LIAR. 97% of scientists has been debunked so many times over its not even funny. You are spreading LIES to stop people from watching a movie you have never watched. Its pathetic. Anyone with half a head can tell you are spreading propaganda. You talk about relying on studies while telling people to not a watch a movie you haven’t EVER watched in your life. That’s disgusting what you’re doing. Don’t believe a single word this liar writes on here.

          • Common Sense

            Climate Change is a religion and John G is a priest. Don’t dare commit blasphemy on their sacred religion. Evidence isn’t their strong point but trying outcast people who think with their heads instead of believe lies is.

          • Common Sense

            People should watch all information, not just one sided like John G would prefer. How ridiculous and unscientific to say you should limit your views to simply those outlets that agree with your ridiculous message already. Blocking out opposing views is the most unscientific thing you could ever do. Don’t kid yourself. You’re a joke.

          • Dylan

            Common sense needs some common sense!

          • Dylan

            I’m sure your common sense tells you climate change isn’t happening because it’s 40 degrees outside! Maybe you should change your name to captain obvious!

          • JamesB9

            Sun will warm/cool causing alarmists to revise/adjust/filter their charts/data.
            Volcanos will erupt and cause global cooling and I’m sure cash starved/debt laden governments will find a way to tax an “take action”

          • Dylan

            Ah yes, another great scientist in our midst! Please enlighten us! Also, it’s volcanoes and “a” take action. Just a heads up for next time you try to argue this.

          • Hans-Erik Arp

            Ist…that is my real name.
            2nd I am just a rancher.
            3rd there should be honour not honor among people.
            Now…..
            You are correct that the plural of volcano is volcanoes but in either spelling format there is no misunderstanding. However, in my humble opinion, (an) “take action” would read better and make more sense as and “take action”.
            Just a heads up for next time you try to argue what you think someone said.

          • vaughney

            I can’t believe the owner of this site allows Mr Jeremiah ‘John G’ on here to spout his destructive propaganda at all, let alone allowed him to control the entire forum with his lies and vitriol as he has…
            If he believes in what he preaches, he should go and live in the woods, in a cave with no fossil fuels, no electric power, no cars or any motor vehicles and like our Paleo ancestors: he’d better be fit and healthy, because he will have to hunt for his food. Because that’s what EVERYONE on this planet will have to look forward to if ‘John G’ and his antisocial, anti-capitalist, lefty liberal progressives get their wish…
            Anyone who seriously believes that ‘solar power’ and those ridiculous, hideous looking windmills are a viable substitute for coal fired, or nuclear power is very sadly and dangerously deluded…

            Nobody needs to understand any science with regards to this scam. Any child can see that nothing John G’s catastrophic AGW alarmist doom and gloom scaremonger cohorts have predicted, has happened.
            It IS a SCAM and it IS a HOAX!

            The only ‘science’ anyone should be studying in relation to this hoax is the science of Psychology: on how supposedly ‘intelligent’ human beings can and indeed have been, so innately NAIVE and gullible and allowed themselves to have been taken in, then indoctrinated with this NONSENSE!
            The propaganda being used to spread and validate this CAGW myth, would even make Adolf Hitler very jealous – even he, if he were alive today, probably wouldn’t believe that people could be this easily led into believing such RUBBISH!

            John G doesn’t like this movie because it simply exposes the HOAX that he and his ‘green’ movement wants to defend!
            He (and his loony lefty friends) wants EVERYONE to have NOTHING.
            Well go for it John if it’s so important to you, nobody’s stopping you. If you want to live in a world free from ‘fossil fuel’ energy, you can do that ANYTIME. Right NOW if you want to, but you don’t have to drag the rest of us down with you…

            If a world without fossil fuel energy is so great John G: Lead by EXAMPLE, otherwise SHUT the F*** UP!
            You sound like a a fanatical indoctrinated useful idiot trying to push the left’s despicable, STALINIST agenda.

          • Common Sense

            YES YES YES. Thank you Vaughney. John G is a propaganda spreading liar!

          • Dylan

            Wow. Common sense you’re an absolute moron. You have no evidence to back up our claim and simply resort to name calling. John G, stop wasting your time with people on this page. There’s a reason they come to this foolish website.

          • John G

            First, you say there is still a debate about the science. Then you wonder why the side opposing your opinion is allowed to speak.

            Well, I have been writing my responses respectfully, and with links to reputable scientific references to back up my assertions when I see inaccuracies about the subject of AGW. I do this because I love nature and the many amazing different forms of life in it. I am facinated by ecosystems and the balance of species that one finds in them. I am horrified that a small vocal minority gas been able to delay US government action on the single biggest threat to all of the above, and I have been recently motivated to both set a good example by doing something I believe in and to try to protect the future for my daughter.

            I don’t get any money or any other compensation at all for doing this. I do this on my own personal free time. It actually has been rewarding because I’ve had to research and learn the science much more in order to back my views.

            The reason I am spreading the facts amongst areas of the internet that seem to be heavy in myths and ignorance is that I felt I must play some small part in the conversation.

            My own conspiratorial view is that a lot of people, like the ones who made and came out in support of this movie, certainly do have some short-term skin in the game. A politician from a state that gets a lot of it’s revenue from fossil fuels, especially one who is scientifically illiterate but has a loudly shared opinion that conflicts with mainstream science, should be called to task, not followed down the path they walk.

            BTW, one of the main reasons people do not trust the science behind AGW is their unconscious aversion to change in their fundamental way of life that they think is required to deal with it. That also is a myth. The only change we all need to make is to convert our society off fossil fuels and onto other energy options. No sacrifice necessary at all. For how we can do that, check out this solution that I stumbled across several weeks ago. I had an epiphany when I learned about it, and joined Citizens Climate Lobby to help promote it shortly after:

            https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

            Again, i did this because I think it is the right thing to do. This is a volunteer-powered organization that runs on very little money and a handful of paid people. It consists mostly of volunteers who like myself who feel this is such a worthwhile endeavor, and is run with the proper respectful attitude toward everyone else whether they agree with our position on AGW or not, that we can be proud to become associated with the group.

          • vaughney

            I read it and laughed at how PATHETIC these people are to think that we are all as stupid as them…

        • JamesB9

          Really ? John G seems to have a huge amount of time recompiling/rehashing manifestos .

          I find it hard to believe his/she is not a paid activist.

          If I tried to get a government research grant to investigating climate change and the grant proposal didn’t have a pre-written conclusion that climate change is a fact … would I get the grant ? NO. Its like asking religious organizations to fund research that “might” say Jesus and Mohamad were just dudes/con men.

          So sure scientists agree because that the only way they/their institutions get funding.

          Sun & volcanic activity determine weather.
          Scientists being caught rigging data and decades old theories/predictions telling us that where will be no snow or polar ice caps by 2015 have shown people how corrupt some science can be when there is money involved. Why rig or destroy data if you speak the truth ?

          Until the National Ignition Facility completes it work you can’t get rid of fossil fuels. There are billions of people on this planet living in the stone age wanting electricity and industry.
          You can’t stop progress and solar/wind was 5-10x more expensive and just propaganda/marketing props vs cost effective solutions.

      • TraceSkipper

        Venus? Back here on Earth if CO2 was a problem then we would see escalating temperatures not a cooling trend.

  • jimbancroft

    @JackiDailyShow Talks Marc Morano @Climatedepot About @Climate_Hustle debut May 2 in theaters
    https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/jacki-talks-with-marc-morano-about-the-movie-climate-hustle
    http://www.climatehustlemovie.com

  • jimbancroft

    larn the truth about so-called peer reviewed articles
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/03/another-peer-reviewed-science-failure/

  • jimbancroft

    learn the truth about the vexatious litigation by climate alarmists who want to sue their way to their religious cult of climate alarmism
    @JackiDailyShow joined by Markham Hislop @aen_texas, on free speech from Attorneys General.
    https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/mcintosh-club-for-growth-ebell-cei-on-free-speech-and-climate-issues-hislop-on-banning-opec-oil

  • eric m

    The rise in co2 we have seen is in direct correlation to the population explosion we have seen over the past century . A population increase which does indeed have fossil fuels to thank , via a mutitude of advances in technology ,infrastructure, medicine etc. . The 97% consensus , a tool alarmists use as a last ditch attempt to silence or crush debate , holds no real weight and it’s consensus tells us nothing we didn’t already know ; that human activity contributes to warming . how much warming ? no consensus . Is it a dire or dangerous trend ? no consensus . Are fossil fuels the cause of that warming ? no consensus . Demonizing the fossil fuel industry is almost as ridiculous as trying to tax the air we breath . 2 things that are required for daily life and have brought us so much good . The positive impacts FF’s have brought us far outweigh any negative’s . The benefit’s of FF surround us 360 degrees in every aspect of modern human life. Acting like big oil was somehow knowingly deceiving the public with a product we could somehow lived without is just asinine . If given the choice , who would go back in time to live a life sans FF? We would be literally living in caves if we went that route . no thanks ,it’s quite cold out today . i’ll take my comforts of modern civilization .

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.