Climate Hustle comes to Brussels


Climate Depot, the US think-tank and advocacy group, has created the highly-acclaimed film “Climate Hustle” which takes apart the case for “catastrophic global warming”.  It exposes the lies, exaggerations and misinterpretations which underlie the new religion of Warmism.

I have arranged a screening of the film in Brussels next week, October 19th, at 15:00.  This event will be open to visitors, but if you’re able to come (and please do), please pre-register at  Please also arrive an hour beforehand, to allow for the parliament’s extensive registration and security procedures.

We have Marc Morano, perhaps the most prominent campaigner against climate alarmism, and a co-author of the film, attending the event.  He will speak and take questions.

If you ever thought that 97% of scientists back Warmism, or that we’re about to cross a catastrophic tipping point, or that the human race will be reduced to a few thousand people scraping an existence at the South Pole, this film will reassure you.

Marc Morano:

Marc Morano, the award-winning host of Climate Hustle, is one of the highest profile voices of climate realism in the world today. He currently serves as executive editor and chief correspondent for CFACT’s award-winning, a news and information service he founded in 2009. He is a frequent guest on radio and television talk in the U.S. and internationally, including CNN, Fox News, the BBC, and Canada’s Sun TV, and has been profiled in the New York Times, Esquire magazine, Rolling Stone, and numerous others. From 1992 to 1996, Morano served as a reporter for the nationally syndicated “Rush Limbaugh, the Television Show.” He next served as an investigative reporter for Cybercast News Service and as a reporter and producer for the nationally syndicated television newsmagazine “American Investigator.” In 2000, his investigative television documentary “Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths” created an international firestorm. During his tenure as senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), he managed the communication operations of the GOP side of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Climate Hustle comes to Brussels

  1. catalanbrian says:

    Mark Morano has no formal education or qualifications in climate science, so he is clearly well positioned to advise on this subject!

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      It doesn’t exist as a discrete field of science. Anybody can talk/comment on the topic. So STFU until you can positively add to the subject.

    • Dung says:

      There are no qualifications needed for expertise in climate change and in fact you could say that they are an obstacle ^.^
      To understand fully the whole of the argument; you would need a deep understanding of:
      Physics (esp Astro, Nuclear and Radiation)
      High Intelligence
      An Analytical mind
      Common sense
      An incredible memory

      And to make sense of it:
      A good understanding of all the arguments in play

      There are many more!
      So finding a true expert would be like finding a four leafed clover and the one group who are certainly not experts are the people with Climatology degrees ^.^
      Roger is as close as you can get to the best compromise: Talent and expertise in a core subject of Mathematics and therefore the ability to understand and absorb all the arguments. The one thing I do not know about Roger is whether or not he is aware of all the arguments, no offense Roger hehe

    • catweazle666 says:

      Is there any subject on Earth upon which you are unwilling to pontificate from your pinnacle of intransigent ignorance, Bryan?

      If so, we haven’t discovered it yet.

  2. Just like Al Gore that started all these lies.

  3. Just like Al Gore who started all these lies

  4. Dung says:

    There is another way of looking at the climate change arguments which I actually find more informative: are the human race actually advanced enough to fully understand how the climate of our planet works? My answer to that would be a resounding NO!
    This is where the real fraud takes place.
    A group of scientists (nowhere near 97%) has said that it understands totally how the climate works and so can predict how it will behave in the future, this is the big lie at the root of the problem.

    • And extraordinarily, they think they can reduce the world’s complex and chaotic climate system to a single variable — the atmospheric CO2 level.

    • Martin Reed says:

      The 97% was in fact nearer 0.75%.

      “Mann often claims the imprimatur of “settled science”: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

      The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

      Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

      Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is over represented even within that North American sample.

      Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is over represented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

      Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

      Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”

      Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.”

      Apologies for cut and paste job but it does explain the lie .

  5. Ex-expat Colin says:

    97% – the explanation…or probably a sub species of bile to some?
    “Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
    The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that man made global warming is potentially catastrophic”.

    And the source of the possible bile?

    Its that indisputable evidence thing always…and there is little to none that natural variance has markedly changed in any direction. Well, either of two actually.

  6. Richard111 says:

    A reprint from elsewhere…

    In the Ideal Gas Laws there is a unit called a ‘mole’ for recording the masses of different gasses at specified temperature and pressure. Nitrogen, N2 is 28 grams per mole, Oxygen, O2 is 32 grams per mole, water vapour, H2O is 18 grams per mole and carbon dioxide, CO2 is 44 grams per mole and all have equal numbers of molecules per mole. If we take the average mass of the atmosphere to be 29 grams per mole ( 4 x N2 + O2 ) we see that CO2 is 150% of average mass and H2O is 62% of average mass. Figures are rounded for convenience.

    Let us assume we have a dry day with only 1% water vapour in the atmosphere. 1% of 10,300 kg is 103 kg, 62% of that is 63.86 kg, call it 64 kg of water vapour in our 10,300 kg square metre column of atmosphere. Well now, in this same column of atmosphere we have 6 kg of CO2.

    Now we need to look at the respective radiation characteristics of H20 and CO2. We will see that H2O completely swamps CO2 except for the 4.3 micron band. When the sun is shinning H2O has 7 times the absorptive action as CO2 thus warming the surrounding atmosphere much more heavily than CO2. Also this absorbed sunlight does not reach the surface, a very effective coolant. When the sun is not shinning we must look at the 10 micron band and beyond. CO2 is active over the 13 to 17 micron bands and H20 is active over the 14 to 70 micron bands.

    Which ever way you look at it for just 1% water vapour in the atmosphere giving TEN times more (MASS) H2O molecules than CO2 molecules.
    How can anyone claim CO2 controls anything?

    • ScottM says:

      “Completely swamps”, lol – no. Due to water vapor”s attenuation of outgoing LWIR, the Earth’s surface warms about 30 K in order to produce enough radiation to offset top-of-atmosphere insolation. To offset the additional attenuation by CO2, the surface must warm by another 2 or 3 K. But one of these two gases is on the increase, due directly to manmade causes. The other is also increasing, not as quickly, but in response to the warming induced by the increase in the one that is changing as a direct result of human activity.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “Completely swamps”, lol – no.”

        LOL – YES.

        PS – ever come across the term “logarithmic”?

  7. Martin Reed says:

    The awful consequences of the mass hysteria of the ruling classes for two decades over the rare trace gas CO2 are now becoming obvious with Putin’s increasingly belligerent provocations. The latest of these provocations being the Iskander-M nuclear capable theatre missiles rolling into Koenigsberg. The connection with the global warming fraud is the hundreds of billions European governments threw away on countering the ludicrous fantasy of climate thermageddon, which existed purely in their fevered imaginations, while the world around them became increasingly dangerous, more dangerous now by far even than in the time of the Cold War. So rather than maintain our defences in line with the threats that face us, money was thrown down the toilet with gay abandon. There is an old adage to the effect that if you want peace prepare for war. Bearing that in mind Western governments did precisely the opposite, taking future peace for granted and emboldened the bully boys as never before.

  8. Hi Roger,

    Thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, due to other commitments, I can’t make it. Good luck with the showing.

    Best regards, Alan

    Alan Love BSc. 07935 320 790 @AlanLove

  9. Christopher Browne says:

    Any chance of getting some copies of the Climate Hustle DVD Roger?

    I’ll pay of course.

  10. June A. Van Orman says:

    Since our Planet Earth began there has been climate change. It occurs naturally every so often. However the man-made ones, like those created by Bill and Hillary Clinton et al are making a big deal out of it in order to cash in. What we should be doing is: Cease using the seas, oceans, rivers and lakes as a dumping ground. Limit dangerous fumes from wherever, cars, factories etc. Stop being so free and easy with chemicals. They seem to be sprayed all over the place and those bombs don’t help the atmosphere either. Destroying the Rain Forest and other areas needlessly is creating more man-made havoc. Change what we can, by changing the destructive way we do things and let nature take its course.

  11. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Response to the British Parliament’s Request for Critiques of the IPCC 5th Assessment Review
    December 17, 2013

    “Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?”

    It weakens what was already a weak case for action.
    AR5 now admits there has been little or no warming in the past 15 years, that its computer models failed to predict this pause, and that it has “‘Low confidence’ that damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” (AR5 SPM, p. 23).
    Neither previous nor the current draft IPCC reports contain evidence that justifies the implementation of public policy aimed at cutting human carbon dioxide emissions.

    So here is the prime driver for policy (aimed at ruination of the West) admitting failure and of course the fools in our parliament carry on with their madness.

    Full Q&A here:

  12. George Morley says:

    The political answer is to throw money at it and it will definitely go away tomorrow.

  13. Ex-expat Colin says:

    For todays bile – Marc Morano Skewers Climate Alarmists

    If there was an alternative to bile I’d use the meantime expect outrage!

  14. George Morley says:

    Thanks Ex-expat Colin for that amusing video where we hear much of the truth about the so-called global warming issue but I recall being told about the earth’s axis actually moving which would affect the position of the poles and also magnetic north. If this is in fact happening however small the changed then the weather will also change slightly with some warmer countries cooling and others warming up.
    I would like to hear some comments about this – am I right that this is happening ? It does make me wonder with ice build up and decreasing at the poles.

    • catweazle666 says:

      Changes in the magnetic field have no effect on the inclination of the Earth’s axis so will have little or no effect on the climate. The poles are shifting all the time, and the position of the magnetic pole is not the same as the polar axis.

      The ice cover at the poles is a cyclic effect, it comes and it goes according to a number of cycles, some with a length of decades, others with lengths of many millennia. Over at at least two thirds of the time the Earth has had a climate, there have been no permanent ice caps at the poles, currently the Earth is in a very cold period, and will warm up several degrees purely of its own accord some time in a few tens of thousands of years.

      Standard Operating Procedure for alarmists is to cherry-pick a suitable section of a clearly cyclic phenomenon – be it temperature, ice cover or whatever, linearly regress it to Armageddon and then run round hooting and screeching about how we’re all doomed. Unless we give them shedloads of our money, of course. The climate can no be changed by taxing fossil fuel than can the time the Sun rises and sets.

      Currently the CAGW BS has just about run its course, but they’ll find some other mega-scary problem to tout in the next few years. They always do.

Leave a Reply to Roger Helmer MEP Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s