User Reviews

Having had minimal exposure to the main arguments of climate skeptics I was excited to understand the other side of the story. The oft quoted idea that the "science is settled" when it comes to climate change is a contradiction of terms. By the very nature of the scientific process, nothing is settled or incontrovertible or otherwise beyond question. So it had always worried me how people spoke about climate change with the zealotry of the religious when the climate is, perhaps only second to the human brain, the most complex system known to science.

The film dipped into important points such as the history of the Earth's climate, the questions that still surround the role that CO2 does or doesn't play in the greenhouse effect and the distortion and misrepresentation of data by politicians and the media. All these things were brushed upon but relevant data and case studies to back up the claims were missing or fleetingly referenced. Sweeping claims such as "we are in a CO2 deficit" and "the Earth in greener than ever" were made without qualification. Is crop production better than ever? Are forests thriving more than ever? What other factors could contribute to this?

The graph depicting the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last billion years or so was deliberately misleading. Not least because the atmosphere of 500 million years ago could not support human life. Such graphics and claims, rapidly flashed on the screen then gone before relevant questions can be asked or answered, characterized the film from start to finish.

The conspiratorial theme of the card hustle throughout was also tiresome and does climate skeptics no service. It comes with the implication that those who passionately advocate for climate change are being willfully dishonest or at least there are some great masterminds behind the hoax who are pulling the strings. This is where skepticism turns conspiratorial and an otherwise receptive audience is lost.

I am sympathetic to the subject matter of the film. I've heard enough inconsistencies and issues in the mainstream climate change rhetoric to question its wisdom. This film introduced some interesting points but was not the well presented case I hoped it might be.

This is the first time I have ever seen IMDb attack the source of a movie. Certainly it's not common other than being common practice to attack those who disagree with the man made climate change scare.

The whole climate change movement was once called global warming until that title was losing ground. (Hard to argue that climate changes, it changes every day, throughout year and throughout the centuries.) Why does the man made climate change panic need to be politically protected? Real science accepts challenge and offers the ability to recreate data. There have been deleted email, limits to the years viewed, black balling legitimate scientists that disagree and more.

From a personal view, I can't be the only one who remembers the global cooling, pending ice age scare from a few decades back.

Follow the money, lots of people getting rich and powerful by pushing this.

Hoping to see this. Locally appearing one day with one showing.

Climate denial propaganda that does not understand how percentages are calculated.

A documentary of compelling arguments like; you can't get a percent of 97 when the research numbers are 77 of 79, and, outlawing hunting polar bears after 1972 increased their numbers to disprove climate change. What. The. Fudge is wrong with these idiots?

Reading the reviews that have obviously been written by pro 'Climate Change' interests; I can see that the 'hustle' by the con men is still being maintained. This documentary provides answers and examples of how Climate Change is a political construct rather than a scientific fact. And, more importantly, testimonies from eminent scientists who are willing to call the other side out publicly. When 'Al Gore's army' can do the same I might begin to stop laughing at them. 'Climate Hustle' is a great documentary and I suggest people watch it and make up their own minds. Peter Faulkner

This production is only useful to show how out-of-context interviews, incomprehensible graphs and non-experts from irrelevant fields can be piled into a large enough trash heap to support any worldview.

For those of you who believe in Climate Change (Duh!) but don't believe that humans are the driving force - and are sick and tired of being called a "denier".....this movie is for you. But really - it SHOULD be for everyone else. If this movie does not give pause.....to think that maybe, just maybe, there are more complicated forces at work - then there is little hope that you'll extricate yourself from the dogma that has sullied science. The movie is funny and fact-filled - and really only scratches the surface of the behind-the-scenes politics that drive the Green agenda.

Enjoy - let sanity prevail.

"Climate Hustle" is the worst "documentary" I've ever seen. It's an intellectually dishonest piece of political propaganda with awful production value, unconvincing arguments, and a clear right-wing bias. Regardless of your political beliefs, it goes without saying that a documentary should be informative and as truthful as possible. It should include a range of viewpoints that accurately represent both sides of an issue. But "Climate Hustle" - which was funded by the conservative advocacy group CFACT - is completely one-sided. The climate denialists are portrayed positively, while environmentalists are attacked as either crackpots or liberal elitists involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the American people. The interviews included in the film are heavily edited, clearly done in order to match the filmmaker's conservative political agenda.

The movie's attempts to discredit widely accepted climate science fall flat on their face, as no evidence is presented to back up the filmmakers' claims. At times, "Climate Hustle" comes across as a parody of climate denialism: the filmmakers argue that climate change is a hoax because Thomas Jefferson once wrote a letter describing a hot summer in 18th century Virginia and in the modern day Obama's climate adviser refused to answer a bizarre question about giving his daughter a sled as a present. This movie appeals to neither side of the climate debate: liberals won't be convinced by this movie's ridiculous arguments while conservatives will scoff at its childish representation of their point of view. And as a movie, "Climate Hustle" even fails as entertainment. Its obviously fake green screen effects and cheap title cards look like a high school student film, not a proper documentary that played in theaters. Regardless of your political beliefs, "Climate Hustle" is a terrible movie that is neither informative or entertaining. 1/10.

They've all been written by accounts that haven't reviewed anything else. Surely that tells you enough.

You know those people who think they're right about something only because they're too dumb to understand why they're wrong? This movie was made by and for those people. Marc Morano doesn't seem to understand that to disprove something, you need to present contradictory evidence beyond "nuh-uh!" Between misquoting experts, misunderstanding what facts and statistics mean, and just outright lying and making things up, the only thing Morano proves is that he is entirely too incompetent to speak on any of the subjects he attempts to tackle. He also demonstrates that he doesn't know how percentages work just for good measure.

I saw Climate Hustle today and went in as someone without a specific opinion on the topic. I am not a scientist nor is anyone I know. To date, any info I have about climate change came from the electronic box in my living room, the one I'm typing on now or the many "fervent believers" I know, who are not scientists either. (But boy, they've got religion!)

However, I have been on the front lines of business (which means: sales, marketing and business owner) for 35 years so I can smell a questionable pitch from a mile away. Which doesn't mean the pitch is bull, it means it's questionable.

What has always troubled me about the climate change topic is: -- a) It came about SO quickly and with such desperately urgent action requested = Flag #1 -- b) The primary worldwide spokesperson is a politician = Flag #2 -- c) This former politician (and many other vocal proponents) has made enormous sums of money off the subject he's pitching so ardently = Flag #3 -- d) There is too much supposed consensus on a subject so complex AND a lack of open discussion and debate = Flag #4

Okay people, never mind what the topic is -- if you're an adult, who thinks, then those first 3 items related to any pitch should give you a mighty pause.

Regarding the movie: if you consider it as another part of your information gathering regarding this complicated topic then you'll learn some things. I didn't love the attempts to entertain and amuse but understand why the film maker felt the need (in America, most have to be entertained in order to get their attention) nor some of the choppy editing. Rather I would have enjoyed more in-depth interviews with some of the important scientists featured. But, their points were made and I was much relieved to witness that there are still some people in this world who will openly reverse course when they realize their initial viewpoint was wrong or inadequately supported. Those are courageous people.

I felt the taped panel discussion at the end added to the effort. Whereas, I wouldn't have chosen Sarah Palin to be on it (she may have value to add but articulation is simply NOT her thing), I guess she provided some notoriety. The other two were the film maker and a climatologist and they offered worthy information.

The movie is worth your time as food for thought and a counterpoint to all of the one-sided info coming our way in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately the entire field of climate change has been hijacked by those with undermining political aspirations as well as those who simply want to cash in on the alarmism created by Hollywood and the mass media. In contrast to the constant flood of political and unscientific claims designed specifically to separate you from your money, this movie looks at the real science behind our ongoing climate change and attempts to briefly explain what has happened and what is likely to happen (climate-wise) in our future. Among other clarifications, the movie points out that the claim of what 97% of the scientists supposedly believe is a total fabrication based on very poor and misleading research. Numerous scientists including those from within the IPCC and NASA are interviewed to give their opinions and reasoning on the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic climate warming, which has undergone numerous name changes in reaction to their previous predictions being demonstrated to be nearly 100 percent wrong. Although the field is extensive and still being explored, Climate Hustle attempts to summarize and draw the main features of what we know so far together and present the facts in a manner which will inform but not overwhelm the viewer. In short, our climate future looks good. However, if those pushing the political man-made warming agenda have their way, our financial future will not be as bright. As an interesting overview, Climate Hustle has done an amazing job.

All the data collected so far is from computer models, there is no factual evidence in anything the liberal left is putting out. And they want to call us deniers, that is rich, you believe everything the Government tells you without question. I question everything, especially coming from the Government and I work for the federal Government.

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