Sarah Palin Endorses Anti-Climate Change Film (EXCLUSIVE)

Sarah Palin Anti Climate Change Movie
Picture Perfect/REX/Shutterstock

Fathom Events and SpectiCast are giving a major push to the anti-global warming documentary “Climate Hustle,” with plans for showings at nearly 400 theaters on May 2.

Variety has learned exclusively that former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is participating in the event. The screening of the documentary, produced by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Marc Morano’s ClimateDepot.com, will be followed by a panel discussion featuring Palin, with opening remarks by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The discussion will be moderated by Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center. Morano is planning to show clips of Bill Nye, best known as “the science guy,” from an interview. Variety reported earlier that Nye was scheduled to appear but his rep for said he was not invited to participate. 

The invitation-only panel discussion will take place Thursday in Washington, D.C., following a screening of “Climate Hustle.”

“I’m very passionate about this issue,” Palin told Variety. “We’ve been told by fearmongers that global warming is due to man’s activities and this presents strong arguments against that in a very relatable way.”

Palin noted that, while governor in 2008, she sued the U.S. government over placing the polar bear on the threatened species list because of the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. Palin pointed to the high population of polar bears in 2008 and dismissed climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice as “unreliable,” “uncertain” and “unproven,” but a federal judge backed the government scientists’ finding in 2011.

“I wanted facts and real numbers,” Palin said. “The polar bear population is stable, if not growing and the designation would have stymied Alaska’s pursuit of developing its natural resources.”

The “Climate Hustle” presentation by Fathom, which specializes in presenting live events for theatrical chains, represents a departure from its usual fare of music and family films.

Among the largest past presentations for the company, co-owned by AMC Entertainment, Cinemark Holdings and Regal Entertainment Group: “The Sound of Music 50th Anniversary” at 800 locations; “Finding Noah: An Adventure of Faith” screened at 637 sites; “Ed Sheeran: Jumpers for Goalposts” at 584 theaters; and “Chonda Pierce: Laughing in the Dark,” a documentary about Christian comedian, at 512 locations.

Palin said “Climate Hustle” offers a countering view to Al Gore’s global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which grossed nearly $50 million and won Academy Awards for best documentary feature and original song.

“People who do not believe in American exceptionalism have made this into a campaign issue, so it’s vital that the other side be heard,” she added. “I’m very pleased that this is written and spoken in layman’s terms. My dad taught science to fifth and sixth graders, and it was very important to him that science be presented in an understandable way.”

Marc Morano, host of “Climate Hustle” said, “This film is truly unique among climate documentaries. ‘Climate Hustle’ presents viewers with facts and compelling video footage going back four decades, and delivers a powerful presentation of dissenting science, best of all, in a humorous way. This film may change the way you think about ‘global warming.'”

The film profiles Georgia Tech climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John Theon, and French physicist and Socialist Party member Claude Allègre.

“Climate change is certainly one of the hot-button issues at the forefront of some of the fiercest political debates. This event aims to shed light on varied perspectives and initiate healthy and timely conversation around this important topic,” said Fathom Events Vice President of Programming Kymberli Frueh.

“‘Climate Hustle’ is an extremely timely event, especially given the relevant political discussion surrounding global warming,” said Mark Rupp, co-founder and president of SpectiCast Entertainment. “We feel it is important to share all viewpoints on the climate change issue and ‘Climate Hustle’ provides a perspective not generally shared with the public at large in an informative and engaging way.”

Morano founded the anti-climate change website Climatedepot.com in 2009. Media Matters for America, a politically progressive media watchdog group, named Morano the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” in 2012.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 111

Leave a Reply

111 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Truthseeker4all says:

    First off for all you koolaide drinkers that believe Al Gores documentary was true and real. You must also believe the movie “The Day After Tomorrow was real too. Because Al Gore STOLE the scene from the movie showing the ice glaciers breaking and falling into the ocean. Its too bad that part was filmed in the summer time when the ice usually melts anyways. Al Gore came out of the Whitehouse worth 2 million, thanks to his continued lie of Global warming he’s now worth hundreds of millions. If only we could make that kind of money telling a lie. But we leave that up to the liberal demonic leftist who will tell you anything to tax you to death. So if Gore believes our coast lines will be under water soon, why did he buy a multimillion dollar house on the coast in California? And remember he said the ice caps will be completely gone and melted by 2013….. must have meant 3013 right? Because I can remember just last year a huge ship carrying nothing but weather and climate scientist to prove that the ice was melting and they ended up getting stuck and trapped in a bunch of ice and had to be rescued by another ship or two. I wonder where all that ice came from? We never got to hear their scientific results because they were dumbfounded by what they really saw with their own eye balls instead of repeating the same left socialist narrative that they have been trained and paid to say. So the real documentary Climate Hustle will show everyone that the truth is being covered up and that even the hardcore left scientist are done telling the lie & are telling the real truth.

    • Edward Silha says:

      I do not care what Al Gore claims. I do care that nearly every international science organization in the world has agreed that the conclusions of the IPCC are either correct or underestimate the risks associated with unabated CO2 emissions.:

      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Meteorological Society
      American Chemical Society
      American Geophysical Union
      American Physical Society
      The Geological Society of America
      U.S. National Academy of Sciences
      Joint Science Academies Statement on Climate Change
      And nearly 200 more
      If Morano does not include these facts in “The Climate Hustle”, it will be clear that the “documentary” is nothing but misleading propaganda.

      Truthseeker4all wrote: “ship carrying nothing but weather and climate scientist to prove that the ice was melting and they ended up getting stuck and trapped … I wonder where all that ice came from?”
      No need to wonder as there are many articles on internet that explain that a shift in the wind (a weather event) caused the floating sea ice to collect around the ship, trapping it. Polynyas can close within a few hours if the distribution of sea ice in the general area changes with shifts in the wind direction and speed. The volume of ice did not increase, it was simply redistributed by the wind.

      • Kelly Goshen says:

        I am tired of the banal repetitions of inaccurately conceived and reported news about first global warming and then climate change.

        Virtually every scientist believes in climate change. It’s as if scientists were asked in they believe in gravity or light.

        What I believe CLIMATE HUSTLE goes well is frame and rebuke the bulk of the nonsense that gets repeated over and over. Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change as there are basically three groups of people making claims and counter-claims.

        The first are scientists who have the proper credentials and experience who believe that industrialization and increasing amounts of pollutants may have an effect on earth’s environment over the long term.

        The second group are scientists with equal and better credentials who do not believe the trifling percentages of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from man constitute any clarion call for immediate action or even action in the seasonable future.

        Both of these groups agree on much. First, they agree that so far that has been NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF of anthropogenic climate change or catastrophic fore warnings.. Second, they agree that much more research and more accurate computer modeling and better math needs to be conducted to determine if any emergency exists now or has ever existed.

        There is a third group of people — politicians, industrialists, bankers, lobbyists, promoters, and a wide collection of “celebrities” and funding-desperate minor scientists who have decided to use the alarmist scare tactics to raise monies to meet their needs. Included in this group is an international cabal of bankers and super-rich individuals who are pressing for legislation limiting “carbon” emissions so that they can get a “cap-and-trade” set of laws that will allow for the world’s worst Ponzi scheme as they operate the world’s banks of and groups that will license and sell carbon use indulgences.

        This third group is the most vocal and least informed about the actual science. The film CLIMATE HUSTLE does a very good job at revealing how hopelessly devoid of actual facts and integrity the alarmist positions actually are.

        Of course, the alarmist people will strike back and lampoon this film and recommend no one see it, but that’s what all con artists would say and do when someone starts revealing their deceptions and deceits. You can simply keep the blinders on and stick your fingers in your ears so that you never have to deal with the actual facts or with the reality that you’ve been tricked.

        Go see CLIMATE HUSTLE and make up your own mind.

        That prospect scares alarmists more than anything else. They do not want you to know the truth. They cannot let you know the truth.

        Don’t be another one of their “patsies.” Take off the blinders and take your fingers out of your ears and consider just once the facts as presented plainly and accurately.

        You will find out what the charlatans have been doing — all in the name of “protecting ” while lining their pockets with your tax dollars.

      • kolnai says:

        Edward Silha

        Another list of organisations whose elites strongarm their members into agreement with politicised science. But you’re right, someone should include these facts in a documentary; and their rotten political foundations (see psychologist Hans Eysenck’s principled stand in his biography for his courageous stand against such intellectual thugs, firstly in 1930s Germany, secondly in 1970s British universities).

        The ship of fools got stuck because the idiots, (like you) purposefully ignored the sea ice data showing the greatest accumulation of Antarctic sea ice on record. The latest study on the Antarctic (Zwally 2015) also shows increasing continental ice
        The constant repetition of ‘I agree with my friends’ is boring, uncreative and ill-founded. Science is uncertain. Peddling ‘people’s science’ as certainty is both wrong factually and destructive to free speech.

        Lethal, in other words. If you and your cohorts succeed – and truth is never guaranteed to win – life will be nasty, brutish and short for my grandchildren who will live in a totalitarian society run on intellectual brain damage.

      • Albrecht Glatzle says:

        Dear Edward Silha.

        Science never has been a matter of majority consensus. However, there is quite a bit of consensus among the two types of climate scientists, those who believe that humans play a major role in climate change and those who don’t.
        On the other hand, it is a matter of fact that dozens of institutions and hundreds of scientists and thousands of bureaucrats would lose immediately their funding and theirs positions once the alarm on anthropogenic global warming was all clear. Therefore, it seems very unlikely that the vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations are really independent and unbiased. The global climate change industry spends about one billion US$ a day. This means a lot of temptation to produce the expected results.

        Noble Price winner Giaever left the American Physical Society in protest against its unscientific position in climate change. And there are dozens of other excellent scientists who do not share the majority view in this trendy matter.

        There is no need to understand atmospheric physics to make up your mind. Once you understood that there were many pronounced warm periods during the Holocene (last 10.000 years after the latest ice age) in spite of pre-industrial CO2-levels and there was no warming observed during the past 18 years in spite of steadily increasing CO2-levels (in complete contradiction to all the IPCC-models) as an honest and independent scientist you cannot keep sticking to the idea of CO2 playing a major role in climate change.

      • jsm1963 says:

        “There is no need to understand atmospheric physics to make up your mind.”

        Did you seriously just write this?

    • Very nice, I agree completely..

      • Edward Silha says:

        Kelly Goshen wrote: The first are scientists who have the proper credentials … who believe that … pollutants may have an effect on earth’s environment over the long term.

        The vast majority of climate scientists have stated that the use of fossil fuels “HAVE” caused an increase in the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere.

        Kelly Goshen wrote: The second group are scientists with equal and better credentials who do not believe the trifling percentages of CO2 …

        Every study of consensus has shown that the vast majority of the most knowledgeable climate scientists publishing on climate change in peer reviewed journals agree that emissions of CO2 associated with use of fossil fuels are causing the planet to warm.
        Cook, Nuccitelli, Green, May 2013 Oreskes (2004).
        Doran and Zimmerman 2009 et al 2010,
        Bray 2010
        Shwed and Bearman (2010).
        Anderegg et al. (2010).
        AMS Member Survey on Global Warming (2014)

        Why would you choose to believe a polemic produced by Marc Morano, whose has a degree in political science but no formal background in physical science, rather than the members of the national academies of sciences of nearly every country in the world. Members of the national academies are the most knowledgeable and respected in the world.
        Do you have an answer for believing a political operative who is funded by the fossil fuel industry rather than the most renowned scientists in the world?

  2. Edward Silha says:

    Do you think that Morano will make it a point to inform the viewer that
    1. there is not a single international science organization that disputes the IPCC conclusions,
    2. nearly all international science organizations agree with the IPCC conclusions,
    3. Richard Tol (a conservative) “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role. … The consensus is of course in the high nineties”,
    4. the InterAcademy Panel: (a global network consisting of over 109) national science academies accepts the IPCC conclusions?

    Do you think that Morano will make it clear that he is proposing a worldwide conspiracy of the vast majority of scientists worldwide?
    Do you think that Morano will make it clear that climate scientists that are also staunch conservatives (e.g., Kerry Emanuel, Catherine Hayhoe) are concerned that the IPCC conclusions are too conservative and that there is a small but real possibility that the results could be much worse than projected?

    • Kolnai says:

      What has any of this to do with the price of bread? Emanuel and Hayhoe are conservatives? Big deal. Einstein was a socialist, but his science is pretty good. And Kepler, like Palin (and Galileo and Descartes and Tycho de Brahe and…and….), was a Christian – ooooh!

      To all similar ad hom artists: Do your research, especially hypothesis testing, for otherwise you’ll never understand science. It is difficult, but you don’t have to have a degree; the internet and books can teach all you need (as for example, the auto-didact Willis Eschenbach, who knows more than I’ve forgotten).

      Forget politics, forget conspiracy – you’ll never prove it, go for truth. Don’t be so lazy!,

      ‘Lazybones, sleeping in the sun…’

      • Kolnai says:

        Edward Silha

        You haven’t understood my point – my fault? You are playing the man, not the ball. Unsupported/undemonstrated venting of spleen do not an argument make.

        You say the documentary is ‘so-called’. On what grounds? You imply it’s because it’s referring to world- wide conspiracy. Your quotation marks suggest the documentary uses these words. In which case, is there any evidence for this? Let’s see….hmm…

        IPCC is paid for by taxpayers internationally (ie, forcibly) and tries to impose its view on world governments?

        Well, yes it does actually. And there’s a lot of other stuff too – scientists and weatherpersons fired for disagreeing/Presidential website naming and shaming ‘deniers’ etc.. So, even if it’s not a conspiracy, it’s at least a giant tax-and-oil-company funded money machine, which is attempting to strongarm its way to mass conformity and hence the overthrow of science.

        The comments on ‘denier (sic) constituency’ etc. miss the fact that ‘conservative’ like ‘liberal’ covers a wide spectrum of opinion. The political process is a set of negotiated arguments, Hence the phrase ‘Republican/Democrat debate’.

        My advice:Dare to be a Daniel, dare to be alone…

      • Edward Silha says:

        Kolnai wrote: What has any of this to do with the price of bread?
        I just found it interesting that a “so called” documentary avoids noting the overwhelming agreement of international science organizations and scientists which the documentary could only explain as a “worldwide conspiracy”.

        Kolnai wrote: Emanuel and Hayhoe are conservatives?
        The denier constituency exists mainly among conservative politicians (who are out of step with their own constituencies. Noting that climate scientists that are culturally and economically conservative accept that climate change is primarily cause by human activity and entails risk, possibly a very large risk should make those who doubt the science reevaluate their beliefs.

  3. The very title of this film gives the lie to the Fathom Events exec’s claim that its purpose is to “shed light on varied perspectives and initiate healthy and timely conversation.” “Climate Hustle” clearly implies that those who dare suggest that human society take drastic action to slow the spewing of carbon into the atmosphere, or even that such spewing might not be good for us or the planet, are deliberately seeking to “hustle,” i.e., deceive and defraud, the public and government for some nefarious purpose.

    This film is nothing more or less than pure propaganda, by a man and his group who have long provided evidence of their political agenda; shame on Fathom for promoting it. The real hustlers here are Morano and his ilk (and their funders), who value money and their own comfort more than their own lives, let alone those of others or the well-being of the only planet we currently have to inhabit, and are willing to spread outright lies and distortion and character assassination to maintain them.

    • Kolnai says:

      ‘Spewing’! One part per million addition to the atmosphere = one% of greenhouse gasses = ‘spewing’! Give me strength!

  4. jamesphilip says:

    This is what I love about the lyin left. First it was global warming and the world was coming to an end and we need carbon taxes on everyone. Then, when global warming was shown to be bull crap and a lie pushed by scientests who were kissing that butt for funding…. well, time for a new name…. climate change. Kind of like how acorn was prosecuted and shown to be the illegal operation, they changed the name and are doing the same illegal things.
    So, now we have climate change.
    Well, everyone knows there is climate change…. the climate has been changing since the Earth was created.
    The LIE is that humans are the cause for all the climate problems. Why? So the socialists, the marxists, the progressives and useless bureaucrats love TAXES so we now have a new way to TAX the people and waste even more money on progressive crap.
    When Sarah Palin is on the side of the movie Climate Hustle… she is against the lie that humans are the biggest and most responsible for any climate changes that occur and therefore have to be punished.
    Do you really think the government will do good things with the billions in carbon taxes? Suckers.

  5. Howard says:

    In the future, please note that climate deniers are full of shit in the actual article.

    • Edward Silha says:

      Jamesphilip wrote: “First it was global warming … time for a new name…. climate change.
      Nonsense:
      1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’
      letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’.
      journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977
      Google Scholar: the term ‘climate change’ was in use before the term ‘global warming’, and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

      Jamesphilip wrote: “the climate has been changing since the Earth was created.”
      True, but the rate of change and extreme reach has not occurred in 100,000 years (during the existence of homo sapiens). We and other species are well adapted to the climate as it existed in 1900. The question is how hard it will be for homo sapiens and other species to adapt to the new climate.

      Jamesphilip wrote: “the lie that humans are the biggest and most responsible for any climate changes that occur”
      What is your opinion worth, given that nearly every international science organization, the vast majority of scientists (over 80% – over 90% of those researching climate), a large majority of the US population accept that the planet is getting warmer, the current change in climate is caused by human emissions, and the risks associated with the changing climate are significant?

      Jamesphilip wrote: “Do you really think the government will do good things with the billions in carbon taxes?”
      The government will simply refund the proceeds of a revenue neutral carbon tax to citizens.

  6. EricC says:

    I’m not a firm believer in climate change being caused by humans. To me, climate change seems more of a cyclic thing. With that said, I do think that there is a lot of things that we need to change to keep the world livable and the majorly vocal opponents to global warming/man-made climate are so vocal because of corporate pressures.

    I like breathing clean are, so why not make moves to limit smog and CO2 emissions in vehicles, factories, and power plants? Why not take steps to limit the removal of forests that convert that CO2 into O2? I like having clean drinking water, so why not hold the companies that pollute our water ways more responsible?

    The bottom line is that whether or not you are a believer in global warming/man-made climate change, The steps and precautions that are being put in place will allow for a better way of life. Just look at China for an example of how things can get if they go unchecked.

  7. IF THE PRESIDENT .MR .BARACK OBAMA HAD HONORED TO ABOUT OF THIS *

    BANGKOK 9 /4 / 2016 .

    DEEPLY RESPECT TO PRESIDENT MR. BARACK OBAMA

    DEEPLY RESPECT MOST OF ALL ,DEMOCRATIC, AROUND THE COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES

    I am the person, have nationality, of Vietnam, I was not been in favor, from, at the office, the high commissioner refugee of the United Nations , in BANGKOK THAILAND .
    for permission to refugees, with my reasons,
    sorry, because I have demonstrated, the benefits of citizenship,being the abused, oppressed, by government of vietnam because the rule is not fair, the way Vietnam government, robbery and property of citizens,
    for example, very enhance highlights, as, houses and land,
    for this, is still not, has not been terminated, in many other places in country of Vietnam ….. etc , for currently

    BUT IN THAILAND UNHCR. THEY STILL STUBBORN , FOR MY PROFILE.

    The approximate 5 YEARS, in Thailand
    I have no real life, as a human being. they have given me, with a location, of the person the slave.
    moreover, my life, no better.
    by FROM, Gypsy, gangsters, local, in THAILAND , they used them to threaten me. overwhelming, my spirit, I thought, YES , impossible , without the involvement of the UNHCR thailand
    after, I received, the interviews with lawyers, the UNHCR in thailand
    more clearly

    -1 thailand’s government,
    -2 and UNHCR THAILAND

    They, oppose, my work is my honor to be a volunteer for the Democratic Party all over the united states, and the US .MR . BARACK OBAMA
    . AND they answered frankly, I should find the US government,

    for, permission, THE POSSIBILITY TO ALLOWED TO ANY ASYLUM SEEKER , OR REFUGEES FOR MY CASE

    Following that, immediately
    two scam money, to the family of asylum seeker in thailand had occurred, exactly as our families,
    and they can not afford to reject it.

    I embrace suffering, and understand all the developments happening around me
    I need to say clearly to the US .MR . BARACK OBAMA , AND MOST OF ALL ,DEMOCRATIC, AROUND THE COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
    if I have to die, whether any reason,
    also very easy to convince everyone, that
    the only reasons, did not care, for honest people,
    and in fact, still being knowingly to kill, me.
    because only I was likely to prove,
    acts, wrong of the law, still be allowed to exist,
    petitioner
    NGOC THANH TRUONG

    If possible , has been fight the exact of truth for protection of human life .
    Simply , the only thing to be Allowed , to doubt .
    Why ? Criminals now , they still have life comfortable at the outlaws .

    Thanh ngoc truong bangkok thailand

  8. Burt Trattner says:

    It needs promotion as a feature film in theaters!
    The one night blast is too meager compared to Gore’s Inconvenient truth.
    How do we get History Channel and Discovery channel to feature it (if they are not already beholden to the IPCC)?
    If it ever gets theater distribution like Gore’s film, it would become an all time blockbuster. Everyone (the whole world) that has already bought the “Warming Hysteria” might return to common sense. Realizing they have all been victims of Political diatribe. Throw the bums out!

  9. ROY S. MALLMANN II says:

    I have been exposed to this “Global Cooling”-“Global Warming”, now “Climate Change” predicted catastrophic end of life, unless we donate money, malarkey for over fifty years. In 1974, “Popular Science” started the “Global Cooling” catastrophe which predicted that global cooling was going to cause shorter growing seasons all over the world and lead to world wide famine, food riots and extinction by,…wait for it! 2016. Interestingly, the opposite happened and world wide hunger has been all but eliminated. This “Global Cooling” even made it to the covers of all the best known magazines, including TIME Magazine. Obviously, that didn’t work, so now we are faced with yet another “man-made” climate catastrophe “GLOBAL WARMING” which unless we send money to stop the rise of CARBON DIOXIDE, yes CO2, the global temperature will rise by 2 degrees and the oceans will rise and inundate all of the coastal cities which they show by computer generated movies of New York and Miami underwater and everyone drowns. And this “man-made” planet killing scenario is not only in all of the magazines, but all of the news channels and movies and has really spread because their are people in government and the professional environmental groups that are raking in BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. One thing that these hypocrites have in common is they produce more carbon dioxide that all of us peons. Ever single prediction that the UN and the IPCC (who started it), Al Gore, and the rest of the environmentalists has failed to come to fruition. Every one of the more than 137 predictions has failed. This one is spreading though because the young “Millennials”, who have never held a job or moved out of their parents homes, have been brainwashed to believe it. The IPCC invented a computer model that has manipulated data, start to finish, to prove “Global Warming” which it does, UNLESS ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA IS USED. If you use FACTUAL INFORMATION there is no measurable global warming, which by itself should convince even the stupidest of us, that it is a scam. Wishful thinking, eh? Now they are actually threatening to prosecute us because we won’t buy into their deception. Another clue is that they want to lower the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, You know, the same CO2 that is necessary FOR life. This “cause” has cost society billions in lost jobs, wasted “clean energy” projects, that have never been successful, and on and on. This leads me to my final point on this which is “In this age of information, IGNORANCE is a choice”!

    • Edward Silha says:

      So much nonsense. The claim that the planet was headed for an ice age was hyped by some popular magazines (sensational articles promote magazine sales). However, there was never a scientific consensus that cooling was occurring. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
      Given your first claim was so egregiously false, why would anyone accept the other false claims you posted?

  10. Michael Lewis says:

    I have often wondered if Fred Flintstone’s fleet of hummers was responsible for global warming in the age of the dinosaur. It is good to know someone is making a movie for my fellow man made climate change deniers.

  11. Toyo says:

    Have you ever opened an ice cold coke, have you ever opened a coke that’s hot. Gasses tend to dissolve easier in cold water. They tend to come out of solution as the temperature rises. Warmer oceans are going to release more gas, regardless of other effects.

  12. Steven L. says:

    Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to be on a panel discussing the melting of an ice cube. Let alone climate change

  13. Bill Braski says:

    Yes we need more people watching Netflix documentaries claiming to be experts on things. Terrific.

  14. MikeW says:

    President Trump will name Sarah Palin his Secretary of Energy.

  15. jsm1963 says:

    She’ll probably show up expecting to talk about paneling.

  16. donl says:

    Why is it that the only people pushing climate change are obama and the socialists??

    • John G says:

      Actually, over 97% of climate scientists agree that human fossil fuel burning is changing the climate of the Earth. Why would anyone not demand that major changes be made to reverse that?

      Why is it that the two politicians endorsing this film are Republicans who represent or represented major fossil fuel states?

      Why is it that CFACT, a policy group funded by Exxon and the Koch Brothers would in your mind be more likely to produce an unbiased, fair documentary about the theory of AGW than what all the major climate science organizations from around the world endorse?

    • Because it has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with socialism.

  17. Lisamanv says:

    So they found the one percent of scientists who deny man-made climate change. Why do they believe them but not the much larger group who have presented evidence for many years that AL Gore’s film got it right? She has kids and grandkids, isn’t she sorry about the future she is leaving for them?

    • I think like a lot of other rich climate deniers, Sarah Palin is simply hoping that Cthulhu will eat her progeny last.

    • All the government funded scientists say what the government pays them to say, through the grant money. That’s why the ones who aren’t funded seem like the minority, because they have been silenced by lack of government money. This is 97% political and 3% science.

      • Let’s say you’re right. You would only see that effect on a region level where the government can influence outcome based on their agenda. You still wouldn’t see scientists around the world overwhelming agreeing on the subject.

      • Amcountertopfab@aol.com says:

        The climate change activists are in a panic is because their true believers have dropped down to less than 40% because people are seeing the folly of their computer models, which have been manipulated from day one. All the media is behind it because anything showing a coming disaster brings ratings. If you read beyond the hoopla and HONESTLY look at the facts, it is a total scam and the biggest fraud in the history of the world. Is it not enough to see that every single prediction that Al Gore made has failed miserably but the media will never bring up anything about that. The professional environmental groups as well as Al Gore have made billions on this scam, so follow the money.

      • Ken says:

        Caused by humans or not, the numbers are there, whether you want to acknowledge it or not is just your ignorance. Ever been to Miami? Visit it now, and bring galoshes.

    • Kolnai says:

      That’s right, science is static. Whatever the majority says is true for all time.

      Phlogiston, negative weight, the atomic theory of light, and air-borne cholera – all true.

      Thank God no-one listened when Dr Snow (not even 1% of scientists – what a dolt!) presented his theory of water-borne cholera. We’d have many more people on the planet by now, consuming valuable resources. Oh, hang on….

      Long may the majority rule.

      Death to deniers who disagree. The science is settled, the book of nature closed forever.

      Amen.

      • Kolnai says:

        I have no doubt that ‘the consensus’ is ‘significant’ unfortunately. ‘Cherry picking the few’ is obscure, but may be another attempt to say ‘the more observers, the greater the certainty’ (yet the skies were swept by the eyes of thousands in the centuries before Kepler).

        What is clear is the sheer mountain of refutation of direct-evidence hypotheses – everything from ’10 million climate refugees by 2010′, ‘melting of the Arctic by 2007/2011/2013/this year’, ‘Australia’s drought-ridden future’ followed by ‘Australia’s flooded future’ (same bloke!). And see here for more prophecy which has occasionally cost taxpayers millions (e.g. useless desalination plants):

        In ‘normal’ science, one refutation is enough to upset the theory. Not climate science though.

        Bring on the refutations! We don’t care! Nyanya nunyana! Ya boo sucks!

      • Alternatively, the possibility that science may change is not an argument against the significance of current consensus. Cherry picking the few in order to pretend the many don’t matter is piss poor rhetoric.

  18. Drill into the people funding the film. They usually refuse to reveal where their funding comes from, but dig into each member and you find a lot of “According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[3] Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center”

    For the record:

    Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

    Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

    Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

    • B T says:

      There is no question that we have more CO2. The question is if it has the dramatic effect on the climate the fear mongering claim. The answer (as the tree rings prove!) is no.

    • Evan Jones says:

      What we “expect” from the added CO2, based on the Arrhenius experiments, is a mere ~1.1C per doubling of CO2. That is what we have been seeing. What the models project is ~3.0C per doubling. That is not what we are seeing.

      I am a profound skeptic. I am also a “97%-er”. I answer “yes” to all of the questions in the Oreskes and Cook surveys. And so do all the skeptical scientists I know. Did you ever actually read those questions?

    • Albrecht Glatzle says:

      Thank you very much, alex, for your science lesson. I do not think there is anybody who doubts seriously that most of the CO2-increase in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. But what has this to do with the climate? Almost nothing!
      1) CO2 is the only Carbon source for all Organic Matter (which consists to about 50% of C) through photosynthesis and nutrient chains. This fact qualifies CO2 as the most important nutrient of all life.
      2) Furthermore it is generally recognized that atmospheric CO2 concentration of 0.04% is far below the optimum for plant growth. Additional man-made CO2 has been shown to be responsible for a better plant growth and increased Water Use Efficiency, and therefore greening of most semiarid regions in the past 30 years, – as well as agricultural yield increases with an annual value of about 140 billion US$$.
      3) Generally, warm periods are not correlated with CO2:
      – Recently Gernot Patzelt from Innsbruck University found that 65% of the Holocene (past 10.000 years) was warmer than today (in spite of pre-industrial CO2-levels), which he concludes from fossil tree trunks found far above the present day tree limit in the Alps (and elsewhere).
      – There is an ever increasing divergence between (practically all) IPCC-models (published in the first 4 assessment reports) and observed temperatures. In fact there was no observed global warming during the past 18 years, in spite of the burning of about 30% of human extracted fossil fuels during this period. As a matter of fact, observations nullify the basic IPCC hypothesis of human caused global warming.
      4) And looking to the flow of money, one is easily aware that the few 1000 US$$ given by the fossil fuel industry to climate realists is absolutely negligible in comparison to:
      – the amount of about 1 billion US$ spent every day for the global climate change industry (as estimated by former resident representative of the Netherlands at the OECD Hans Labohm)
      – and the 100 billion US$ to be spent annually for the so called green climate fund (just to “convince” or to corrupt developing nations officials to accept “mitigation” project capable of harming their own socio economic development?).
      5) With such a tremendous flow of money it is not surprising that some 90% of the scientists “agree” to the hypothesis of man-made global warming. Scientists are also human beings who depend on regular funding. But please do not expect independent and unbiased results from institutions such as the IPCC which will lose instantaneously its justification of existence, once the alarm on anthropogenic global warming will all be cleared!

      • jsm1963 says:

        What tremendous amount of money? I don’t see many wealthy climate scientists. The real money is in the denial business.

    • Lisamanv says:

      You’re making too much sense for people like her.

  19. Sinkovits says:

    Why would anybody listen to her comment on environment? She has no qualification re. to environment. Opinions like a#h&ls. Everybody has one. Is that a qualification?

    • Why would anyone listen to her? …you could have stopped there. :)

    • Kolnai says:

      That’s right, science is too difficult to be understood by the hoi polloi, especially by deviants like Palin.

      Leave it to the experts say I.

      Take Tim Flannery, ex ‘Climate Commissioner’, once voted ‘Aussie of the Year’. It’s his expert advice got the Federal government to build all those desalination plants for times of drought. Cost a packet to build and maintain, of course, and it’s hardly stopped raining since.

      So what? Better than listening to the likes of Palin (who is in the pay of the Capitalists. And has White skin). Reactionaries like her want nothing better than to confuse the masses by destroying faith in the one true ‘Golden Path’.

      We reply with the words of ‘Che’ Obama on his website! All comrades must act to denounce and destroy ‘alternative path’ (i.e. denier!) thinking!

      Long live Chairman Barak! Long live the Consensus! Liquidate the reactionaries! All power to the Central Committee of the Democratic Party! (etc.)

  20. frank1569 says:

    Palin is no longer part of any equation. The headline should be: ‘Chairman of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to Open Climate Change Hoax Panel Discussion.’ Guess he didn’t get the memo that Exxon spent hundreds of millions to create and perpetuate the so-called Climate Change hoax.
    Or China created it to destroy American manufacturing jobs, like Trump says. Either way, let’s keep living the way we’ve always lived and see how things turn out.

    • Ryan Palm says:

      As of 2015, Rep. Lamar Smith (the Chairman of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress. He’s received more from the fossil fuel lobby than any other industry. His involvement in this movie as well as chairing this committee is a massive conflict of interest. Smith is also not a scientist.

      As for China, you can thank US corporations for moving manufacturing jobs. As long as the American demand is there, China and other third world countries will continue to provide a cheap source of labor. I for one am pleased with not having smog filled skies like the Chinese do. Just look at Beijing on any given day. The idea that they are somehow stealing our jobs is incredibly inaccurate. We did it to ourselves.

  21. CapitalG says:

    Sounds like Bill Nye the Warm Monger Guy may be backing out of this discussion out of fear that being exposed by Sarah Palin would pretty much end his fake ‘Science Guy’ schtick.

    • Kolnai says:

      Yes, and British Petroleum finances the Hadley Centre for Climate Research at the University of East Anglia, whose scientists were caught out hiding data (etc!) in 2009’s ‘Climategate’.

      Another major conflict of interest to put in the drawer marked ‘Al Gore’. Besides Gore’s family company, Century Oil (of whose products he is inordinately fond) he has interests in various environmental companies,designed to make him a killing with legislation he sponsors (agrees/supports etc.)

      Evidence of a wicked world? Surely. Evidence Gore is factually wrong about AGW? Nope.

      He is though, but proving it is tougher than simply naming vested interests. Perhaps we know someone wishes to murder his wife, but finding her dead on the kitchen floor doesn’t mean it was the husband.

      What we have here is yet another pointless ad hom.

      Shell, BP and Exxon all have statements opposing ‘climate change’ on their websites. So when Lamar opposes action, he is not speaking for the oil industry. Only the Koch Brothers now oppose AGW (and even they sponsor BEST, a pro-AGW team.).

      • jsm1963 says:

        2009 “Climategate” was debunked in 2009.

        Also, you might be thinking of the Gores and Occidental.

    • Ryan Palm says:

      Bill Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and regularly lectures on astronomy and human ecology. He is literally a professional scientist.

      Sarah Palin by contrast has a degree in Journalism and was the Governor of Alaska but quit her term before it was over.

      When deciding who to trust I think I’ll side with the professional scientist.

  22. Governor Quitter should have attended her Dad’s science classes. Even a 6th grader can understand why climate change is man-made.

  23. labman57 says:

    Palin’s answer to the climate crisis would be to hold a prayer meeting and ask God to make the climate problems go away. The ‘Whining Wannabe from Wasilla’ has repeatedly demonstrated in the past that she is totally and blissfully ignorant about how science works.

    No Sarah, dinosaurs did not roam the earth with humans.
    Carbon dioxide is not harmless simply because it’s “naturally produced by nature”.
    Droughts and hurricanes are not the result of God’s wrath, and they cannot be overcome by praying for divine intervention.
    Petroleum was not deliberately injected underground by the Hand of God specifically for humans to tap, and the earth is not man’s to pillage, plunder, and pollute at will.

    The fossil fuel industries that are financing the “climate change denial campaign” share the same unethical “profit at all costs” philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.
    The scientifically-clueless Palin would be their ideal spokesperson.

    • Kolnai says:

      Evidence is clearly at an all-time premium here. First we get the old saw ‘if you believe in God, you’re a nutter’. So much for Einstein and Newton!

      Admittedly, Palin fails to see how the theory of evolution is compatible with, and also supports Christianity. But her ignorance of the testability criterion is at least comparable to the ill-informed who believe Darwinism, like climate alarmist science, is oxymoronically ‘settled’. Some hopes!

      Next, evidence-free accusations of ‘fossil fuel’ support, all entirely baseless. Do the American Statistical Association, the British Statistical Society and the National Panel on Statistics (Chair: G North, AGW alarmist) really all get their money from ‘Big Oil’? Yet all three upheld Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s demolition of Mann’s corrupt ‘Hockey Stick’ graph some time ago (despite some dissembling from North).

      Wow! It’s worse than we thought!

      (How do you people sleep at night?)

    • Michael Lewis says:

      What about all the money that Obama supporters made or did not lose in the Solyndra type scandals. What about the fact ethanol gives less miles per gallon and pollutes more than gasoline. And all the subsidies to alternate energy sources that cannot compete without government assistance. Subsidies raise the price of electricity and energy and the poor are the ones most impacted. Poverty is the ultimate pollution. You pie in the sky types should try it sometime!

    • Think about it says:

      EXACTLY! Palin is such a clueless imbecile.

  24. Kek says:

    Yay, more time to listen to Sarah Palin speak about something that she has no expertise in. Besides speaking idiocy.

  25. Bob says:

    Sarah Palin is the Lucy Ricardo of politics. That’s a given. Now she’s branching out into science. God save us all!

    • Kolnai says:

      The whole thing is an episode of ‘I Love Lucy’ – alarmists like headless chickens desperately seeking shelter from Ricky’s withering criticism.

      Who always has the last laugh?

  26. Keith says:

    “American exceptionalism”? Does that mean Palin is more exceptional than me, a non American? Why?

    • E says:

      As an American, I can tell you that it is a common form of rhetoric among her and her party use. It’s a delusion some people have about the U.S. being the greatest country in the world. It’s baseless and usually more of a cheer than an ideal.

  27. Michael says:

    Disappointed to see Specticast and Fathom participating in this. Do they have no scruples?

  28. FuriousA says:

    Funny that the right ridicules anything socialist except if it involves denying climate change and then they have some good ideas (Claude Allegre).

  29. Mike says:

    The woman is dumber than a sack of Alaskan anvils.

  30. Kras k says:

    But there is no other side to the issue.. When 99.9% of all of the entire wold’s scientists agree on something. Including all major agencies and NASA. Exxon is being sued for withholding the truth about man made climate change for 30 years. There are no cycles or sun spots doing this. The evidence is irrefutable in science people. Any scientists / science in this movie is backed by the oil industry like Palin herself.. You would trust someone’s information on global warming who said “drill baby drill”? Wake up people.. Stop being Faux News sheep.

    • sd760 says:

      99.9% of scientists once thought the sun revolved around the earth, 99.9% of scientists once thought the earth was flat. Just sayin… true science always tries to poke holes in theories, always tries to find a different answer. Man-made climate change is not settled science. There is another side to the issue. Why are you so afraid of another point of view? If you’re so sure that you’re right it shouldn’t bother you to hear what the other side has to say. That’s true science. Listening, observing, testing theories. Climate science is young. You can’t say that 40 years of observations can answer the eons old variations in climate. The computer models have shown that they don’t have all the answers yet.

      Two questions deserve to be answered… If climate change is man-made why did Al Gore’s chart show the same climate warming and cooling cycles long before man was around? What caused those cycles?
      Also, if we can change the climate so easily, why haven’t we made it rain in California to end the drought or evened out the temperatures to a nice comfortable 76% everywhere?

      • Ryan Palm says:

        1. Thousands of years ago scientists couldn’t analyze carbon dioxide isotopes present in ice cores, tree rings, the ozone, etc… Now they can. Also, FYI Heliocentrism predates the birth of Christ and was accomplished using science in Greece around 2BC. Granted, it wasn’t commonly accepted but the data was there.

        And, you are correct. Science is based upon listening, observing and testing theories. But, Climate science has been peer reviewed which is why there is such a consensus among the scientific community. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it less true.

        2. Global warming and cooling is cyclical, BUT when you introduce man made carbon emissions into the equation the balance is shifted. Additionally, just because there are cycles doesn’t mean we can’t influence trending, or a gradual shift in a positive or negative direction. We can track these emissions using the methods I began this reply with.

        3. Man made climate change and controlling the weather are not related whatsoever.

    • jaybee48 says:

      But Sarah is a brilliant intellectual who has spent years undertaking rigorous scientific research into the subject. Who cares about what 99.9% of other scientists say? Remember her father taught 5th and 6th grader science and that she went to 5 universities to get her bachelor’s degree. Whom else do you know who had the diligence to ensure they was exposed to so many centres of learning?

      • Kolnai says:

        ‘And not one person has been able to refute the science on (sic) climate change’.

        Really?

        How much refutation can one science take? Leaving aside the sloppy wording, it is an egregious error to believe an entire ‘science’ can be single-handedly refuted. Einstein, was forced to retain many of Newton’s ideas, some of them erroneous (e.g. light as the fastest speed).

        if on the other hand you are looking for some refutations of the statistics of climate science, Note that McIntyre’s work is subject to criticism at several levels – blog, peer review and finally institutional; and if at any of these levels, valid criticism is offered, he accepts it.

        Though he loathes to be described in this way, he is a true scientist, obeying the diktat of ‘conjecture and refutation’, the motor of science

        What is it about the word ‘refutation’ you do not understand? See my other posts here for the almost total failure of most climate alarmism to meet this standard

      • Kolnai says:

        However brilliant Sarah is or is not, it is clear jaybee48 and fellow Palin-slanderers haven’t a clue about the history and philosophy of science.

        I have been unable to find one refutation – that is, there are no counter-examples – that is, no data exists to the contrary – to show anything else than that in science the minority is always right:

        Dr John Snow
        Louis Pasteur
        Rene Descartes
        John Locke
        Roger Bacon
        Neils Bohr
        Johannes Kepler
        The Wright Brothers

        And so on and on and on….what is it you do not understand?

        Cheap ad hominems do not an argument make. (Look it up)

      • jsm1963 says:

        Right. And not one person has been able to refute the science on Climate Change. So far, all we’ve seen from deniers are those who have deceived or do not understand the science.

      • randylahey911 says:

        Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

        CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

        Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

        Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

  31. billyjoe says:

    Of cour$e $arah Palin endor$e$ this movie.

  32. Rendon Holloway says:

    Google search string:
    {Administrative Order No. 238 – Alaska.gov}
    Excerpt from the AO:
    Sarah Palin, GOVERNOR
    STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
    JUNEAU, September 14th, 2007
    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 238
    I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, under the authority of art. III, secs. 1 and 24 of the Alaska Constitution establish the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet to advise the Office of the Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy.
    BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS
    Scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming trend. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will continue to warm at a faster pace than any other state, and the warming will continue for decades. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans. Alaska needs a strategy to identify and mitigate potential impacts of climate change and to guide its efforts in evaluating and addressing known or suspected causes of climate change…

  33. What type of stone cold moron would watch this? Its like the movie out Sepp Blatter. If some has been looking for an opportunity to have sex or masturbate in an empty theatre, this is your chance!

    • Michael Anthony says:

      Spend a week in Beijing, Calcutta and tell us again, with a straight face, this may be normal. A lot of your “stats” are what you’ve read, while climate change scientists have actually studied the facts. While it may be cyclical, man contributions now, are far worse than a few hundreds of years ago. Did you have smokestacks back then? Nuclear waste? Worldwide travel? A bazillion cars? No, none of that. We may have been at the tipping point before, but were saved because man wasn’t there pushing us off the cliff. Look at thousands of year old glaciers, with tame lapse photography of the last 20 years. Disappearing right in front of our face, and you th I no that’s normal?

      BTW, Palin also thinks it’s ok to build oil facilities just about everywhere I n Alaska, despite warnings it would ruin certain animal habitats. Oh, but it would bring jobs, she says.

      What a fool and how unbelievably sad that she has a soapbox.

    • Norma Loquendi says:

      This is the salient fact that the AGW alarmists simply don’t want to address. “Climate change” and “climate disruption,” the new buzz words that have been adopted after 19 year (and counting) of zero global warming – slight cooling if anything – is the NORMAL. It always has been. Earth’s temperature has swung up and down through regular cycles of around 1,500 years, as long as records have been taken, and geological data prove for millions of years before man, or any living thing existed.
      .
      Some of the cycles have been extreme, such as the Great Ice Age, when glaciers reached as far south as Manhattan (you can go and touch the actual boulders they rolled for hundreds of miles to Central Park), to the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grazed sheep and cattle on Greenland’s then verdant grasslands, and other Vikings settled in the far N.E. of the N. American continent and grew sub-tropical fruit like wine grapes (for which they called the place Vinland) in what is now Newfoundland. Then back to the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages, and so on.
      .
      More recently, there was a heat wave all the way through the 1930s, with 1934 and 1936 the hottest year (many climatologists say at least as warm as the last two years), then a 30+ year cooling from 1940 until the early 1970s (NOTE: during the fastest increase in man-made CO2 ever!!), then a mild warming period until the 1990s, and slight cooling ever since.
      .
      The question is not whether there is “warming,” “climate disruption,” or “climate change” at some point in history; the question is what effect man is having on it. The wild swings of temperature in history when man could not have had any possible influence, the anomaly of the cooling 1940 to the early 1970s when he was putting out more CO2 per year than ever before or since, lead unbiased and disinterested people to conclude that man has no more effect on them than he does on the tides, or the constant geographical drift of the magnetic north pole.
      .
      On the other side we have a multi-billion dollar AGW industry and environmental; fanatics like Obozo and his EPA, and government entities like the EPA, NASA and NOAA, plus government-funded organizations like IPCC, that deliberately falsify data to always come up with the required result, and people like Algore and (ex-NASA) Hansen making millions of dollars spreading this hoax. They cherry-pick periods of warming and ignore/evade similar ones in the past, and certainly today’s cooling.
      .
      A senior physicist at the EPA produced an internal report that contained: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” The report continues to claim that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ Fourth Assessment report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on
      Climate Change (IPCC). The research is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field and ignores the latest scientific findings.”
      .
      The report was by Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for
      Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 40 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.
      .
      Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbade Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report. Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin pointed out the peer-reviewed references in his study and says that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.”
      .
      For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
      .
      In other words, the Obozo administration had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine flatulence and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.

      • randylahey911 says:

        Anything that can cause giant famines and trigger nuclear wars is an existential threat.

        Climate change is already and will continue to have a deleterous effect on crops and to push food prices up. Food prices are bolted to civil unrest.

        Also, as you are a denier, heres some cold hard science for you

        Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

        CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

        Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

        Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

      • jsm1963 says:

        “But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged…” Behind the Furor Over a Climate Change Skeptic, New York Times, 9/24/2009

      • Norma Loquendi says:

        To each his own. You can sit in a theater with a raincoat concealing your activity. The rest of us – those with an I.Q. above room temperature – would like to see some cold facts to refute the global warming industry’s propaganda.

  34. Taylor says:

    The fact that Sarah Palin is invited to speak on a panel about anything as serious as the Climate Crisis proves how desperate the climate denial lobby has become. The only thing “uncertain, unreliable, and unproven” is Palin’s stance on really ANYTHING that has to do with politics and societal issues.

    • William Daffer says:

      It’s never a good sign when presented with a release from NOAA and NASA you reply by making veiled references to masturbation; that smacks too much of projection. If you wish the ‘cold facts’, I suggest you actually listen to the scientists, instead of the fossil fuel shills.

  35. Eric says:

    You can endorse any Republican “We can make documentaries TOO, so there!” Al Gore-punishing movie you want to, Sarah, just……don’t ever try to rhyme-rap again like you did in Wisconsin. That was just plain embarrassing to the point of bizarre, even for those hoping Trump would fall. I’d say “He deserves you”, but he didn’t deserve that.
    You are -wayyyy- too white and Alaskan to ever be Jesse Jackson. Ever.

    • Norma Loquendi says:

      As opposed to, say, a congenital liar who has put our most sensitive intelligence secrets into the hands of Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Havana? Or a loony 74-year-old Marxist who only became a Democrat 20 minutes ago?

  36. bill589 says:

    Palin is right. The Climate Change ruse gives government and their corporate cronies more control and money. I agree with the ‘free’ scientists not working for, or getting paid in anyway, by the government.

  37. We should be prosecuting people like this (Palin and the filmmakers she is backing) for crimes against humanity, with the fullest possible punishments — if it can be shown, with eye-witness and/or documentary evidence, that they consciously lied.

    • Kolnai says:

      ‘If it can be shown’? Prison for lying now? What next? Hand chopped off for theft? (O but hang on that’s Sharia isn’t it?)

      Would you be prepared to send Michael Mann to prison, now we know his ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was a fiddle?

      I wouldn’t. Down with your rat-faced totalitarianism. You’ve never lied for gain? I don’t believe you, Holy Joe

      • Edward Silha says:

        People are prosecuted for lying to the police.
        People are prosecuted for lying when under oath (perjury).
        People are prosecuted for lying about the prospects of the financial gain a company might expect.
        Exxon/Mobile could be prosecuted for this last type of lying if it is found that the deliberately mislead their investors.
        If it further proved that persons were paid to spread misinformation, those persons could be prosecuted for fraud..

  38. West Eric says:

    I think the headline should say “pro-climate change documentary,” since it seems to be supporting that humans keep doing exactly that.

    • Norma Loquendi says:

      TO: John Harrington: Google “Hillary Clinton’s lies.” Be sure to have plenty of time.
      .
      I believe that your real motive is the same as the “establishment” had in Germany in the 1930s, where anyone disagreeing with them was punished and their writings destroyed in ceremonial book burnings. Time to iron the wrinkles out of your brown shirt.

  39. hseneker says:

    When considering climate policy, it is good to look at hard facts.

    There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

    hseneker.blogspot.com

    The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

    • Edward Silha says:

      The blog you referenced is gobblety gook, meant to confuse people that lack an understanding of the science of climate change.

      You seem to prefer to believe someone who claims to be a journalist and does not claim any background in science rather than believe the statements of the National Academies of every developed country in the world. If it involved getting advice about a health problem, would you seek the advice of some blogger or accept the advice of a physician that disagreed with 97% of physicians in general?

    • “Don’t pay attention to the scientists … check out my blog.”

      Um, no.

      • Norma Loquendi says:

        You tinfoil hat global warming alarmists, with your constant “man-made CO2 increase causes global warming” can’t explain how, during the fastest increase in CO2 ever, from 1940 to the early 1970s [the industrialized world went on an armament-making spree in WWII, then lots of steel, concrete etc. production for post-war reconstruction and infrastructure, plus consumer durables like cars and refrigerators in the post-war boom]. 95% of this was powered by coal-burning power plants, and global temperatures went ………. down for all 30+ years. Went down enough for the predecessors of today’s AGW nuts to predict, with equal confidence, the coming of a New Ice age, and suggest such remedies as increasing particulate emission to help the greenhouse blanket, and even covering the poles with soot to attract more sun’s heat. The only pathetic excuse from the global warming industry is that aerosols suppressed warming during that period, as if aerosols didn’t exist in the atmosphere before 1940 and mysteriously disappeared after 1975.
        .
        You people can’t even explain why atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily over the past two decades while Earth’s temperature has been static. You offer the bogus rationale that all the heat mysteriously avoids the land masses and instead ends up in the oceans: They say the fact that the oceans’ surface temperatures have not increased – other than locally by El Nino etc. – is because, again magically, it’s all gone deep, defying the laws of physics and convection.
        .
        In fact, global warming and more atmospheric CO2 would be beneficial to the world’s population. The 3 degree temperature rise that the AGW alarmist industry keeps babbling about (well, they were babbling about it 19 years ago; not so much now) reduce the number of people (hundreds of thousands) who die from cold each year, and open up vast areas of currently frozen tundra to agriculture. Except it won’t. The total global temperature rise in the past 145 years has been, wait for it ………. 0.8 degrees. At this rate, to reach even the alarmists industry’s lower mythical 2 degrees, would take 544 years. So if you plan to be around in AD 2559, better get you’re A/C checked out. And a growing body of climate scientists is now predicting that the last 19 years of zero warming may well indicate the leading edge of the New Ice Age their predecessors warned about 40 years ago.
        .
        There is no – zero – empirical evidence of a connection between atmospheric CO2 and global climate. How could it, when that gas is present in parts per million, and the total growth in the past 100 years has been the equivalent of one molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of air.
        .
        So what has the increase in atmospheric CO2 been PROVEN to have caused? Glad you asked. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report warned of mass starvation from global warming caused by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and predicted with “virtual certainty” that crop yields would plummet unless industrialized nations immediately adopted stricter limits on CO2, which the IPCC said was causing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. By 2020 yields from agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.”
        .
        But eight years later, in 2014, a record level of atmospheric CO2 (over 400ppm) coincided with farmers reaping record-breaking harvests worldwide. In fact, 2014 signified an all-time record grain production. Oops. According to a report released by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “world cereal production [wheat, corn, oats, barley, rice, etc., the staples that 95% of the world population depends on for survival] in 2014 is at a new record of 2,487 million tons, 7 million tons above the previous peak.” That includes a record level of wheat production worldwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The study stated that the CO2 “fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process” and has created “a greening of the globe over recent decades.” That greening effect includes a growth spurt among trees, including redwoods and giant sequoias in California [don’t tell the AGW featherbrains in Hollywood] and the rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar etc. In fact, 30 years of satellite imaging has shown that, as atmospheric CO2 soared, total greening of Earth increased by 20%.
        .
        Claims that global warming and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are harming crop production have been proven preposterous by the real-world, objective data. We know that in recent decades, we’ve seen an actual tripling of production of the most important staple crops. There’s been a record production of wheat in much of Asia and Africa, and throughout the world where the wheat harvest is important. Instead of diminishing crop yields, high levels of CO2 actually help to increase them.
        .
        As we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it can be expected that that’s going to benefit crop production because carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant,” as the IPCC and AGW loons say, but aerial plant fertilizer. If CO2 were to disappear, or fall below a critical concentration, all life on Earth would die out. The gas is used by photosynthetic [green] plants to produce their structures and food. In turn, herbivorous animals graze or browse them; predators feed off the herbivores. Omnivores like humans depend on both green plants and – other than strict vegetarians – food animals for life.
        .
        Horticulturalists pump CO2 into greenhouses to boost plant growth. Replicating the greenhouse experience that plants that are artificially fed more CO2 grow more rapidly and are more productive, the same happens in the natural environment with more atmospheric carbon dioxide. This link between higher levels of CO2 and record crop yields worldwide was never discussed at the UN’s climate change conference in Lima (surprise!) To the extent that agriculture is discussed at any United Nation meetings, it continues the claim, despite all the evidence, that global warming is wreaking havoc on crops.

  40. KatieAnnieOakley says:

    Track Palin has a TELEVISED Telephonic Pre-Trial Conference tomorrow morning. This is from early January, when he drunkenly beat the stuffing out of his girlfriend while waving around a gun. They’ve already managed to delay it twice – the Palin’s will be out in force in the media today, trying to distract from that tomorrow.

  41. Alaska Daily News
    Rick Steiner
    March 7, 2013

    Before being picked as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin seemed a true believer in climate change. In September 2007, responding to requests for urgent action, Palin established the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet to develop and implement a comprehensive Alaska Climate Change Strategy.

    In establishing (Governor Palin’s) Climate Cabinet, Palin correctly stated that: “Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans. Alaska needs a strategy to identify and mitigate potential impacts of climate change and to guide its efforts in evaluating and addressing known or suspected causes of climate change.”

  42. Did you happen to ask her about why Sarah Palin was once a believer in global warming? As governor she wrote this:

    _______________________________________________

    July 2008
    From the office of Governor Sarah Palin

    “Dear Alaskan,
    Alaska’s climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends
    before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented
    within the time of human civilization. Many experts predict that Alaska, along
    with our northern latitude neighbors, will warm at a faster pace than any other
    areas, and the warming will continue for decades.

    We are faced with significant
    questions: How fast will the
    climate warm? How warm will it
    get? What effects will the warming
    have?

    My team, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, is
    giving immediate attention to our communities
    most at risk from coastal erosion and flooding.
    Although many of our coastal and river communities
    have flooded in the past, they have become more
    vulnerable as permafrost and shore ice that once
    protected their shores has been lost to warming
    temperatures.

    The Sub-Cabinet is also developing recommendations for
    other Alaska communities that will be impacted as a result of
    climate change

    All life on Earth shares one atmosphere and each nation, each state, bears a
    responsibility to all to protect it. Our government officials need to be well-informed
    as the debates continue on legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

    Every Alaskan has been, or will be affected by climate change

    Until Next Time,

    Governor Sarah Palin”

  43. dji says:

    if you want the truth on things listen to palin and the opposite is true. she has an empty head. she knows nothing.

More Film News from Variety

Loading