Jimmy Kimmel’s hu***ing us

Jimmy Kimmel went on a two night rant about CFACT’s new film Climate Hustle even deploying the secret weapon of lazy comedians everywhere — Profanity.  Well, it’s easier for him than learning about the issue.

Meanwhile the people who turned out Monday night to see Climate Hustle at the movies continue to report how delighted they are with the film.

It appears that on Monday Climate Hustle was the number six movie in the nation. When you consider that Hustle was going up against Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice, the Jungle Book, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, and Barbershop: The Next Cut, this is huge. Those other films were in thousands more theaters around the country with multiple show times throughout the night.

Climate Hustle continues to average four out of five stars at the movie review site Fandango even though many climate hustlers who didn’t even bother to see the film posted one star reviews in a vain attempt to blunt our momentum.

Check out the short video some of our friends in Montana made of people’s reactions to the film. You’ll especially want to see young Rebecca, who after the movie realizes how much inaccurate information she has been taught in school.

Breitbard columnist James Delingpole minced no words in correcting the many errors in Jimmy Kimmel’s climate rant.  He takes Kimmel down point by point.  Take a look.

Climate Hustle is unique.  It exposes the tricks the climate hustlers use to ply their trade, lays out the science and does it all with humor and a quick wit.

Thank you to everyone who helped us get this far.

Time to take the next step.

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • Jimmy Kimmel’s piece was horrible, a bunch of fear mongering swearing “scientists” and then having the kid swearing at the end was repugnant.

    • Denis Ables

      A perfect example of left content. For many of those believers, it’s a religion substitute – a cult.

    • JOHNBOY11

      he’s looking for a position on the Clinton White house//or is that the BIG house??

    • cshorey

      Elmer is offended. Call the PC police!

  • AuBrix

    Kimmel is typical of a feckless, uninformed orator. When he can not provided witty, intelligent retort he provides an emotional response with either great volume or obscene language.
    I have no reason to spend my valuable time watching him.
    If JK is an entertainer then he needs to be a clown. He certainly is not a satirist or the style of Mark Twain. Mark Twain was on the correct side when he would chastise .gov schemes or the day.

    • cshorey

      Or he resorted to actual scientists if you watch the piece and don’t act like a CFACT parrot. AuBrix want a cracker?

      • AuBrix

        Climate Change = Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall.
        Man-made GW is Tripe and a money grab.
        I was a kid in the 60’s back then the weatherman said “We are probably going back into an Ice Age”.
        As even your eyes and skin can tell THAT NEVER happened.
        So what in your fervent, religious-like belief makes you correct ?
        YOU may consider me a parrot as I have LIVED through these man-made panics, and deny the Alarmist then and NOW.
        I consider you a SHEEP amongst a pack of wolves deciding “What’s for SUPPER”. BA-Ba csh.

        • cshorey

          Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall = seasons not climate.
          Man made GW is measurable and happening, and I don’t make any money from it. When you were a kid you might have heard a weather man say that after hearing about Milankovitch theory, but if you had stayed tuned to the science you would have seen that the possibility of an oncoming ice age due to solar forcing is not going to happen with greenhouse forcing. AuBrix should swallow his cracker.

          • AuBrix

            Al Gore is calling you. He wants to scratch behind your ear for you Ba-Ba. 🙂
            Go get your wool sheared off along with your wallet and FREEDOM.

            • cshorey

              HA! You said “Al Gore”. Thanks for admitting you’re only about the politics, I’m talking science here however.

            • cshorey

              Let’s have fun with AuBrix. You want to pose questions, I’ll start with “Why have we observed the troposphere to be warming and the stratosphere to be cooling?” Go!

              • AuBrix

                That claim must come from those 75 out of 77 ( That WOULD answer that survey) scientists that make up the 97% that BELIEVE in Global Anthropomorphic Warming.

                • Dano2

                  Cook totem! Drink!

                  best,

                  d

                • cshorey

                  Fail.

    • rusty57

      50% of climate ‘science’ is name-calling.

  • Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk must answer just one question: Why do the Vostok ice cores show that the CO2 increases over the last many Ice Ages come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases? The answer: CO2 does not drive the temperature; the warming oceans drive CO2 out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2 is not a driver. It is a passenger. Live with it!

    Get the facts:
    http://www.windpowerfraud.com
    http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

    • cshorey

      Ooh! I know! Because there are positive feedbacks such as colder water holds CO2 better than warm water, and a warm world is a wetter world creating more methane producing wetlands, and warm periods melt permafrost releasing more CO2 and methane, and warmer seas can lead to releases of frozen methane hydrate from the sea floor, all of which I can give you peer reviewed literature for, though I wish, as this article prescribes, you would learn about this on your own. What you have ultimately pointed out is that in the past climate change has been temperature first (driven by Milankovitch cycles) with the greenhouse gasses coming in second to give major positive feedbacks in the climate system, but now we have the greenhouse gasses going up first and the temperature rising after. This is a non-analogue climate change in the paleoclimate record. Maybe the PETM. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • Thetruth

        Wrong the co2 is an effect of temp as once temp starts to go down co2 STILL continues to raise for another 800 years on average before starting to go down.
        So you can see that co2 is a effect of temp both up and down.

        • Dano2

          …and yet, right now CO2 is leading temp.

          Must be some of them thar NewPhysics or sumpin I guess.

          Best,

          D

          • Thetruth

            Dano
            You are so funny
            If you look at the graph of co2 and temp, there are many times since mankind started adding co2 that the temp went down or stayed flat, like it did for the last 18 years. Unless you use the FAKE report that shows the pauses was not a pause, biggest problem is they DID NOT release the data or methods used. That is not a problem for you as you believe.

            • Dano2

              And yet, CO2 leads temp.

              Best,

              D

            • Dano2

              the temp went down or stayed flat, like it did for the last 18 years

              And yet, it rose unabated.

              Best,

              D

              • Thetruth

                Nope they did not from 1940 to the mid seventies and the last 18 years

                • Dano2

                  And yet, the temp rose unabated over the last 18 years.

                  Best,

                  D

                • cshorey

                  1940’s -70’s more aerosol influence, last 18 years, negative PDO tilting ENSO towards La Nina. Yeah Thetruth, I’m brainwashed and you’re enlightened. You really don’t have enough knowledge to discuss properly.

                  • Thetruth

                    No, that is a made up study that has no backing.

                    • cshorey

                      That statement involved several studies, and no one with real climate knowledge would ever say what you just said. Time for a new name. I could suggest a few.

            • Dano2

              the FAKE report [that] DID NOT release the data or methods used

              And yet, they did. On-line and then to Lamar Smith. Twice.

              Derptastic comment!

              best,

              D

              • Thetruth

                SO SHOW THE DATA AND METHOLDS USE OR A LINK TO THEM

                • Dano2
                  • Thetruth

                    Show the links?

                    • Dano2

                      What more do you need? A mouseover to hold your hand?

                      Best,

                      D

        • cshorey

          Oh my goodness. So feedbacks can work in both directions!!! Yeah, that does’t controvert what I said. Think.

          • Thetruth

            NO. It’s the same what you call a driver AKA co2. BUT that so called driver is always on average a follower of 800 years both up and down. YOU cannot have your driver do both things like you wish it either drivers temp up or drives temp down. NOT BOTH. Co2 is a minor trace gas the real green house gas is water vapor which accounts for 95% of the green house effect.

            • cshorey

              That driver can also be a positive feedback agent, thanks for helping to elucidate my exact point. Seems you have enough knowledge to really f this up.

              • Thetruth

                No you do as you cannot see the truth as so brain washed you have become a useful sheep

    • Dano2

      I’ll take those points on offer:

      o CO2 lags temp in Vostok record [10 points]

      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

      Best,

      D

  • cshorey

    I love this article ignores that Jimmy pointedly said not to follow what he had to say, but listen to actual scientists. The profanity was to bring the scientists down to a certain level more acceptable to a portion of society, but you have to love CFACT’s conniption fit over it. Take the time to learn. That’s a laugh Craig.

    • rusty57

      Jimmy didn’t even see the movie. That’s the laugh.

      • cshorey

        I believe he was responding to all the promos for it, particularly Sarah Palin’s, giggle giggle.

        • rusty57

          Governor Palin. Kimmel is just a comedian, and not a very well informed one at that.

  • Ian5

    Jimmy Kimmel’s principal message was right on the mark…pay attention to what scientists have to say not misleading, ideologically motivated rubbish.

    • Which Scientist? His 6 scientist or these 31,000 scientists? http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

      • cshorey

        Your 31,000 are mostly engineers and hardly any have worked in climate science. That’s like asking 31,000 heart doctors about brain tumors. Try actual climate scientists next time Elmer.

        • Dano2

          Are the Spice Girls still scientist?

          Best,

          D

        • Nice try, all you’ve got is a politician an actor and a guy plays a scientist on TV.

          Here are the qualifications of signers of the Petitioin Project.

          Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

          The current list of petition signers includes
          9,029 PhD;
          7,157 MS;
          2,586 MD and DVM; and
          12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
          Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

          All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of
          specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the
          research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

          The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

          Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

          1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes
          3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

          2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes
          935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming
          hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

          3. Physics and aerospace sciences include5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

          4. Chemistry includes
          4,822 scientists trained
          in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

          5. Biology and agriculture includes
          2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

          6. Medicine includes
          3,046
          scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

          7. Engineering and general science includes
          10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

          The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

          Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

          1. Atmosphere (579)
          I) Atmospheric Science (112)
          II) Climatology (39)
          III) Meteorology (343)
          IV) Astronomy (59)
          V) Astrophysics (26)

          2. Earth (2,240)
          I) Earth Science (94)
          II) Geochemistry (63)
          III) Geology (1,684)
          IV) Geophysics (341)
          V) Geoscience (36)
          VI) Hydrology (22)

          3. Environment (986)
          I) Environmental Engineering (487)
          II) Environmental Science (253)
          III) Forestry (163)
          IV) Oceanography (83)

          Computers & Math (935)
          1. Computer Science (242)
          2. Math (693)

          I) Mathematics (581)
          II) Statistics (112)

          Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
          1. Physics (5,225)
          I) Physics (2,365)
          II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
          III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

          2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
          Chemistry (4,822)

          1. Chemistry (3,129)
          2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
          Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

          1. Biochemistry (744)
          I) Biochemistry (676)
          II) Biophysics (68)

          2. Biology (1,438)
          I) Biology (1,049)
          II) Ecology (76)
          III) Entomology (59)
          IV) Zoology (149)
          V) Animal Science (105)

          3. Agriculture (783)
          I) Agricultural Science (296)
          II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
          III) Plant Science (292)
          IV) Food Science (81)

          Medicine (3,046)
          1. Medical Science (719)
          2. Medicine (2,327)

          General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
          1. General Engineering (9,833)
          I) Engineering (7,280)
          II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
          III) Metallurgy (384)

          • cshorey

            Thank you for proving that almost all these folks (0.3% of U.S. science graduates) don’t work in climate science. What I have is 97% of scientists actually working in climate science.

            • You mean 75?

              • Dano2

                Cook totem! Drink!

                Best,

                D

              • cshorey

                Before you said I had three, now I’m up to 75! I’ll assume you mean 75% of working climate scientists agree AGW is real. It’s closer to 97% really, but if we take your 75%, then it directly contradicts your 31,000 number as the former is to climate scientists, and the latter is to whoever signed the petition. I got the Oregon Petition and threw it out. Wish I kept it for history. It was meant to fool those who don’t have enough knowledge. But back to the experts who say it’s real and going to become more and more of an economic burden.

                • No the 97% figure came out of a survey of only 77 scientist.

                  • cshorey

                    Do you even know why this is being discussed? It was an attempt to derail initial points made. Yawn.

          • Dano2

            What about the Spice Girls? The Three Stooges? Disney characters? Someone’s dog? What are their degrees?

            Best,

            D

      • Dano2

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

        I loveloveLOVE that joke! I still LOLz every time I see it, even after all these years!

        Best,

        D

  • AuBrix

    Here is one Social Commentator who knows his subject(s) ( GW) and enlightened his audience all at the same time. RIP George
    OBTW he was a high school drop-out. Can not tell by his volumes of work. He could put to shame about any Ivory Towered Elitist Academia or Political

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

    WARNING Adult language is used

    • Dano2

      He’s totes right: AGW will screw humans.

      No wonder you respect his work! good job respectin his work!

      Best,

      D

      • AuBrix

        NO! He begins with the ALARMISTS of the world and how they panic over everything, like a herd of sheep stampede.

        A ‘…closed-end biological mistake,…” does not make it a Man-made creation.

        The Earth will shake off man like a dog shakes off fleas.

        • Dano2

          I totes agree that The Earth will shake off man like a dog shakes off fleas, in the meantime Carlin was right: AGW will screw humans. We’re goin’ away. Pack your sh*t, Folks, we’re goin’ away.

          Best,

          D

          • AuBrix

            Man can not control flood waters.
            He sure can not control harder Climate Non- Issues. CO2 is a Non- issue.
            Where you gonna get your veggies if the is NO CO2 ?

            • Dano2

              Where you gonna get your veggies if the is NO CO2 ?

              That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!

              Best,

              D

            • cshorey

              Picking a comedian to argue a comedian who directly says not to listen to him because he’s a comedian and so gives actual scientists. Deep thinker there AuBrix.
              Dano2 already corrected you here.

  • Huub Bakker

    When are we, who live outside the US and Canada, going to get a chance to watch the film?

    • Dano2

      I don’t think there was a plan to take this grift overseas.

      best,

      D

    • AuBrix

      It showed in Paris, France during a global summit last fall 2015.
      Europeans had a chance to see it before those of us in North America

      • Dano2

        They tried to use it to take some publicity away from COP21. They failed spectacularly.

        Best,

        D

    • cshorey

      It was really just an attempt to rip off Merchants of Doubt, so go see that instead.

  • cshorey
  • Tom B

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.