kerryrus Very good points, loved it.If you attack the consensus, you're called a denier. The inference to being akin to a holocaust denier is not so subtle. Normally polite people resort to name calling, there is a collective hysteria on this issue.

ameliakatherinelee Having had minimal exposure to the main arguments of climate skeptics I was excited to understand the other side of the story. The oft quoted idea that the "science is settled" when it comes to climate change is a contradiction of terms. By the very nature of the scientific process, nothing is settled or incontrovertible or otherwise beyond question. So it had always worried me how people spoke about climate change with the zealotry of the religious when the climate is, perhaps only second to the human brain, the most complex system known to science. The film dipped into important points such as the history of the Earth's climate, the questions that still surround the role that CO2 does or doesn't play in the greenhouse effect and the distortion and misrepresentation of data by politicians and the media. All these things were brushed upon but relevant data and case studies to back up the claims were missing or fleetingly referenced. Sweeping claims such as "we are in a CO2 deficit" and "the Earth in greener than ever" were made without qualification. Is crop production better than ever? Are forests thriving more than ever? What other factors could contribute to this? The graph depicting the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last billion years or so was deliberately misleading. Not least because the atmosphere of 500 million years ago could not support human life. Such graphics and claims, rapidly flashed on the screen then gone before relevant questions can be asked or answered, characterized the film from start to finish.The conspiratorial theme of the card hustle throughout was also tiresome and does climate skeptics no service. It comes with the implication that those who passionately advocate for climate change are being willfully dishonest or at least there are some great masterminds behind the hoax who are pulling the strings. This is where skepticism turns conspiratorial and an otherwise receptive audience is lost. I am sympathetic to the subject matter of the film. I've heard enough inconsistencies and issues in the mainstream climate change rhetoric to question its wisdom. This film introduced some interesting points but was not the well presented case I hoped it might be.

reasonablyniceperson Any true scientist will tell you that in science the book is never closed on any issue, and that includes the THEORY of man-made global warming. Politicians, dictators and their flunkies in The Establishment Press are the ones who close books. In today's political climate (no pun intended) the pro-Globalist elite try to keep the books closed by enforcing the unwritten but very real regulations on behavior and thought control that are collectively known as The Rules of Politically Correctness. In doing so they are employing the same method used in Leftist one-party states such as North Korea, Cuba and California. Galileo and Copernicus are just two of the many people who were made to suffer for daring to think outside of the box and disregarding the PC rules of their day. Furthermore, reasonable certainly in the field of science is never attained by consensus. Virtually one hundred percent of "scientists" once believed that the world is flat and people like Copernicus and Galileo were made to suffer for taking exception to the orthodox view.

Film Nut I saw Climate Hustle today and went in as someone without a specific opinion on the topic. I am not a scientist nor is anyone I know. To date, any info I have about climate change came from the electronic box in my living room, the one I'm typing on now or the many "fervent believers" I know, who are not scientists either. (But boy, they've got religion!)However, I have been on the front lines of business (which means: sales, marketing and business owner) for 35 years so I can smell a questionable pitch from a mile away. Which doesn't mean the pitch is bull, it means it's questionable.What has always troubled me about the climate change topic is: -- a) It came about SO quickly and with such desperately urgent action requested = Flag #1 -- b) The primary worldwide spokesperson is a politician = Flag #2 -- c) This former politician (and many other vocal proponents) has made enormous sums of money off the subject he's pitching so ardently = Flag #3 -- d) There is too much supposed consensus on a subject so complex AND a lack of open discussion and debate = Flag #4Okay people, never mind what the topic is -- if you're an adult, who thinks, then those first 3 items related to any pitch should give you a mighty pause.Regarding the movie: if you consider it as another part of your information gathering regarding this complicated topic then you'll learn some things. I didn't love the attempts to entertain and amuse but understand why the film maker felt the need (in America, most have to be entertained in order to get their attention) nor some of the choppy editing. Rather I would have enjoyed more in-depth interviews with some of the important scientists featured. But, their points were made and I was much relieved to witness that there are still some people in this world who will openly reverse course when they realize their initial viewpoint was wrong or inadequately supported. Those are courageous people.I felt the taped panel discussion at the end added to the effort. Whereas, I wouldn't have chosen Sarah Palin to be on it (she may have value to add but articulation is simply NOT her thing), I guess she provided some notoriety. The other two were the film maker and a climatologist and they offered worthy information.The movie is worth your time as food for thought and a counterpoint to all of the one-sided info coming our way in the mainstream media.