There’s a 1.5 hour documentary up on YouTube at the moment. Should be up for around 30 days.
It’s kind of depressing though, so would recommend reading up on the synopsis before jumping in.
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?
No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.
I'm sorry, I'm usually a MM fan but right now I'm just so overloaded with bad news about covid I just can't handle more right now so I'm avoiding this.
Matt Swain wrote: I'm sorry, I'm usually a MM fan but right now I'm just so overloaded with bad news about covid I just can't handle more right now so I'm avoiding this.
These are kind of strange times, and nobody is obligated to watch it. Please take care of yourself over there.
Elbows wrote: Michael Moore is still around? That's....unfortunate.
Oh dear. Does he have a bad reputation? I'll admit to having thrown this up without much knowledge of his work.
Not really, He is a documentarion with a very liberal bent, so he rubs quite a few people wrong.
I personally dont like him, he is kinda sensationalist with his stuff and performs a lot of Performance Art style shenanigans.
He tends to be very political, and has a knack for taking worthy causes but making them extremely polarizing...
However, I skimmed through the video and honestly this did not strike me as that. It seems to mostly be simply anti-corporate, and does things like focus on Al Gore and Obama being affected by corporations in making environmental decisions, but doesn't focus on politics.
So, I think this can stay open if we can just focus on environmentalism.
I personally think that the enviroment is too far gone, and to have any hope, we are going to have to come up with some sort of Tech that reverses global warming and cleans that air and oceans.
But that is in the realm of Sci-fi.
Its honestly hard to not feel powerless when it comes to this, every time summer comes around i feel the heat earlier and earlier.......and knowing that the most powerful nation in the world is doing nothing.....and i cant change it.....is truly saddening.
I watched more and looked into some critiques of the movie. One criticism is that he's showing extremely out of date (like, by over a decade) solar setups. This kind of thing really undercuts his argument.
I agree we're not there yet on renewables, but we're wayyyyy better at it than 10 years ago, and will hopefully be so much better again in a similar timeframe. I know things are urgent, but you've got to work on solutions, and the world needs energy to function and for people to, well, live
So, it's got some great moments, but also some that are off the mark (imo, of course, and from some reviews of it).
Had a look at some of the criticisms as well, and they certainly sound valid. I think one of the more prevalent arguments (aside from not providing solutions) was that Moore didn’t mention nuclear power. It would seem that editing footage of conversations is a common criticism of Moore’s movies in general.
I think the point Moore makes about the construction materials makes sense. As you mentioned earlier however, that was over a decade ago. Do you know what specific changes were made?
Movie could be good, could be bad, anywhere in between. But Michael Moore is kind of a jackass. I take most of what he says with a grain of salt bugger than the one you need for most 40k rumors.
So I’ve always had this thing of generally agreeing with his position but really, really disliking him and his approach. (TLDR, he’s a dick, even if a well meaning one).
I also take real issue with that synopsis “Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road”
Really? Really?! our political and economic leaders are getting criticised for their lack of commitment to climate change on about a weekly basis in the media I see; Moore is hardly the lone gun daring to speak the truth on this.
Michael Moore is someone that I can't truly trust. I'd never even heard of him when a friend took me to see Bowling for Culombine. It was a movie that made me think, so watched a couple more of his documentaries over the next few years.
I felt he brought up some good points, but I had problems with other points. Like others have stated, no matter what he was trying to say, he comes off as a bit of a donkey-cave. Then things started to go downhill when I learned that a lot of what he had in his "documentaries" were scripted fiction. Some of his "eye witnesses" for interviews were paid and reading from scripts. Many of his facts are downright lies. He edits videos to lead you to incorrect conclusions.
Jadenim wrote: So I’ve always had this thing of generally agreeing with his position but really, really disliking him and his approach.
Yes, I am very much in the same boat. He starts with a good premise, but then he always - ALWAYS - picks some questionable ways of trying to prove his point. That means he can be attacked on the latter while the former can be handwaved away.
It's pretty much the precursor to James O'Keefe, albeit maybe a little less abjectly dishonest.
Jadenim wrote: So I’ve always had this thing of generally agreeing with his position but really, really disliking him and his approach.
Yes, I am very much in the same boat. He starts with a good premise, but then he always - ALWAYS - picks some questionable ways of trying to prove his point. That means he can be attacked on the latter while the former can be handwaved away.
It's pretty much the precursor to James O'Keefe, albeit maybe a little less abjectly dishonest.
I don't know, Moore has a boatload of dishonesty in his documentaries. I'd put them about on the same level.
I wonder about this particular documentary and if it will age well. One underlying current throughout it is that renewables just aren't worth the effort / are just big fossil fuel business in disguise. When we do finally have a majority of energy from renewables, won't this look misguided? It's like looking at early computers and completely missing / discounting where they were headed in the future.
Another review mentioned he also completely ignored nuclear. Not saying it's the answer, but to focus so much on when renewables have downtime and need a backup and not to mention it seems... disingenuous at best.
While there might be something to that, Michael Moore is the very definition of polarizing in his approach, if any person can be described as such
His documentaries are intentionally so, as he's trying to force people to choose a side on an issue. The odd thing, is that in this documentary he's trying to force people to choose Against renewables - and I think that's very shortsighted. See my computers example above! In the 70's, if you evaluated the technology only as it currently was, you might have a similar reaction...
Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
Remember CFC gasses (like Freon)?
Did we wait for a 100% alternative to be developed?
No, we limited it's usage.....and market forces kicked in, and an alternative was quickly developed.
Remember leaded fuel?
Did we wait for a 100% alternative to be developed?
No, we limited it's usage.....and market forces kicked in, and an alternative was quickly developed.
There is a certain group of a certain leaning in certain countries, that keeps presenting arguments like that - whenever it is suggested, that anything they like is limited.
Elbows wrote: Michael Moore is still around? That's....unfortunate.
Oh dear. Does he have a bad reputation? I'll admit to having thrown this up without much knowledge of his work.
the right wing in America dislike him as he's got a liberal bent so he;'s seen as a bit polarizing
That's pretty much true. In america if a person is to the left of atilla the hun he's guilty of being polarizing and divisive,.
If a person it extreme far right the left if guilty of polarization dnd divisiveness for disliking him.
That isn't why Moore is disliked, or why he is disliked by both sides. He takes a current social issue and basically profiteers on it, while making arguments and using tactics that range from deceptive to outright dishonest. He edits interviews heavily to the point that the speaker seems to say the opposite of what they were actually saying when recorded, and pays for other interviewees to recite the views he's chosen to push. When called on it, he claims its valid to make the case because the issue is 'so important.' But what it actually does is undermine efforts towards real solutions, and undercuts efforts to make the issue a genuine concern (rather than part of 'fake news').
He chooses sensationalist over authenticity and helps build the circus of 'truth is about how you feel, not facts' that we have to deal with today.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
This is a logical fallacy argument called "the nirvana fallacy". Basically the nirvana fallacy goes "Unless a solution is absolutely, totally, 100% perfect and free from any flaws or failing in any case, it is totally worthless and must be rejected.
Elbows wrote: Michael Moore is still around? That's....unfortunate.
Oh dear. Does he have a bad reputation? I'll admit to having thrown this up without much knowledge of his work.
the right wing in America dislike him as he's got a liberal bent so he;'s seen as a bit polarizing
That's pretty much true. In america if a person is to the left of atilla the hun he's guilty of being polarizing and divisive,.
If a person it extreme far right the left if guilty of polarization dnd divisiveness for disliking him.
That isn't why Moore is disliked, or why he is disliked by both sides. He takes a current social issue and basically profiteers on it, while making arguments and using tactics that range from deceptive to outright dishonest. He edits interviews heavily to the point that the speaker seems to say the opposite of what they were actually saying when recorded, and pays for other interviewees to recite the views he's chosen to push. When called on it, he claims its valid to make the case because the issue is 'so important.' But what it actually does is undermine efforts towards real solutions, and undercuts efforts to make the issue a genuine concern (rather than part of 'fake news').
He chooses sensationalist over authenticity and helps build the circus of 'truth is about how you feel, not facts' that we have to deal with today.
I remember seeing Bowling for Columbine, and getting to the ending where Moore actively shows himself getting into Chartlon Heston's home for an interview under false pretenses, and basically tries to character assassinate him in his own living room, undercutting the message of the entire movie and made Moore look like a total donkey-cave. There's a way to make those points, and that was not it.
Going from a Vegan Diet to near unrestrained consumption of nothing but McDonalds piles on the pounds, and wrecks your physical health?
Good findings, Sherlock....
Such Documentaries always irk me, because they always seem to start as a conclusion in search of evidence. No matter what they might turn up, they’re so focussed on proving the maker Clever, they’re just distasteful to me.
Going from a Vegan Diet to near unrestrained consumption of nothing but McDonalds piles on the pounds, and wrecks your physical health?
Good findings, Sherlock....
Such Documentaries always irk me, because they always seem to start as a conclusion in search of evidence. No matter what they might turn up, they’re so focussed on proving the maker Clever, they’re just distasteful to me.
Not to mention, 5000calories a day was near impossible to actually eat if he was doing what he was said(Namely only getting a meal and supersizing if they ask) would average about 2500-3500 a day. So he over ate.
if you eat 5000cal a day you would hurt no matter what.
While i agree with you they look in terms of evidence, alot of it can be "Well DUH" Like yeah, corporations are harming the enviroment, yeah mcdonalds is bad for you, yeah corporations are sending labor to china for cheap labor. WE ALL KNEW THAT.
MM is hit or miss with me, he has some misses, and a lot of his videos are preaching to the choir. I did like "where to invade next?" for listing things america should take from other countries.
I'm not a big fan of his, i respect him and his courage. and it takes a lot of courage for him to do what he does, but most of his docs i can pass on.
Matt Swain wrote: MM is hit or miss with me, he has some misses, and a lot of his videos are preaching to the choir. I did like "where to invade next?" for listing things america should take from other countries.
I'm not a big fan of his, i respect him and his courage. and it takes a lot of courage for him to do what he does, but most of his docs i can pass on.
It doesn't take any courage to misrepresent people and tell the existing audience who already agree with you how right they are.
It takes a lot more courage to have an honest conversation and try to work out practical solutions, than just rake in cash with faux outrage
Matt Swain wrote: MM is hit or miss with me, he has some misses, and a lot of his videos are preaching to the choir. I did like "where to invade next?" for listing things america should take from other countries.
I'm not a big fan of his, i respect him and his courage. and it takes a lot of courage for him to do what he does, but most of his docs i can pass on.
It doesn't take any courage to misrepresent people and tell the existing audience who already agree with you how right they are.
It takes a lot more courage to have an honest conversation and try to work out practical solutions, than just rake in cash with faux outrage
Pretty much this.
Politically, I’ve a lot in common with Michael Moore, so this isn’t some ‘hurrdurr tubby libtard’ thing. I just don’t like his work. If anything, because he goes for such low hanging fruit, he undermines other, more serious efforts.
I mean, it’s the different between making a Documentary about how any form of political extreme recruits new people, and a Documentary about ‘oh noes Political Extreme Group R Bad’.
The former can be thought provoking, and help with interventions before someone swallows the Kool Aid. The latter? Well....yes, yes it is. Any kind of Extreme tends to be less than useful and desirable to society at large - so what was your point again?
I remember he's got massive manipulative editing. The most infamous I remember was his Farenheight 911 one where he asked a congressman if he'd send his son to Iraq... While the editing cut out the entire bit where the guy said his Nephew already is.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I remember he's got massive manipulative editing. The most infamous I remember was his Farenheight 911 one where he asked a congressman if he'd send his son to Iraq... While the editing cut out the entire bit where the guy said his Nephew already is.
No point to watching his vids.
How about the "All I had to do was open a bank account, and the bank handed me a gun over the counter, same day, no questions asked " scene from Bowling for Columbine? Although portrayed as a same-day event with guns being kept in the bank, in actuality it was over several days, guns aren't kept at the bank, he had to get a background check done, and begged and pleaded with them to change their normal practices just enough to edit the frack out of it.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
This is a logical fallacy argument called "the nirvana fallacy". Basically the nirvana fallacy goes "Unless a solution is absolutely, totally, 100% perfect and free from any flaws or failing in any case, it is totally worthless and must be rejected.
Yes, it takes courage to be a prominent liberal in modern america. As soon as anyone sticks their head up and makes a progressive statement, they are immediately sent threats of violence and even death.
Also since liberal views like worker's rights, far wages, etc are often frowned upon by corporate culture in america being a working person expressing liberal views can result in your losing your job for no given reason. I had family members lose their jobs over attending certain social or political rallies. Some employers even said if they saw their employees at a rally resisting his political POV they would be fired.
Pretty much feel the same as most here. MM tends to say stuff I generally agree with, then somehow twist and mangle it to the point that I find myself getting annoyed at him more often than not. I think it's because he often ends up doing similar things in his films to those he accuses the conservative, corporate right of doing. When you're cherry-picking evidence, selectively editing and putting your conclusions before your research you end up getting in the way of the thing you're trying to achieve.
Matt Swain wrote: Yes, it takes courage to be a prominent liberal in modern america. As soon as anyone sticks their head up and makes a progressive statement, they are immediately sent threats of violence and even death.
Also since liberal views like worker's rights, far wages, etc are often frowned upon by corporate culture in america being a working person expressing liberal views can result in your losing your job for no given reason. I had family members lose their jobs over attending certain social or political rallies. Some employers even said if they saw their employees at a rally resisting his political POV they would be fired.
Sadly, no more...It has totally swung the other way, as in those with a liberal view are shouting from every news station and mountain top and those not following this tune are quickly condemned. The conservatives are those that are now being attacked (verbally and physically) for being a conservative, republican or heaven forbid, a Trump supporter.
One of the really interesting aspects of the current flavor is that it is almost all set as the responsibility of the consumers. The manufacturers, Distributors, and Sellers have no role. Of course, in a global and interconnected world, holding any one industry or company responsible was a ridiculous premise.
This has changed somewhat with the creation of "Green Investors" and some small government changes. However, the responsibility to stop climate change is still mostly at the feet of individual consumers.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
This is a logical fallacy argument called "the nirvana fallacy". Basically the nirvana fallacy goes "Unless a solution is absolutely, totally, 100% perfect and free from any flaws or failing in any case, it is totally worthless and must be rejected.
I didn't know, there was a distinct fallacy for this problem.
It is a good day, when you learn something new.
Slight aside, but if you’ve got some time it’s well worth wandering through the wiki articles on various types of fallacy. It’s really interesting and great fun to see how many you accidentally fall into.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
This is a logical fallacy argument called "the nirvana fallacy". Basically the nirvana fallacy goes "Unless a solution is absolutely, totally, 100% perfect and free from any flaws or failing in any case, it is totally worthless and must be rejected.
I didn't know, there was a distinct fallacy for this problem.
It is a good day, when you learn something new.
Slight aside, but if you’ve got some time it’s well worth wandering through the wiki articles on various types of fallacy. It’s really interesting and great fun to see how many you accidentally fall into.
Absolutely. I usually have a good grasp of both formal and informal fallacies, having interacted with quite a few religious apologists, so I was pleasantly surprised to have missed one.
I also enjoy skimming through the various common fallacies, to see what I am guilty of saying and doing.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. people demanding that any alternative to fossil fuels must be completely developed and able to 100% replace fossil fuels, for the alternative to even be considered, supported or fossil fuels having any kinds of limits placed on them.
This is a logical fallacy argument called "the nirvana fallacy". Basically the nirvana fallacy goes "Unless a solution is absolutely, totally, 100% perfect and free from any flaws or failing in any case, it is totally worthless and must be rejected.
I didn't know, there was a distinct fallacy for this problem.
It is a good day, when you learn something new.
Slight aside, but if you’ve got some time it’s well worth wandering through the wiki articles on various types of fallacy. It’s really interesting and great fun to see how many you accidentally fall into.
Absolutely. I usually have a good grasp of both formal and informal fallacies, having interacted with quite a few religious apologists, so I was pleasantly surprised to have missed one.
I also enjoy skimming through the various common fallacies, to see what I am guilty of saying and doing.
I had also not heard of this one, despite studying critical thinking. I don't think this one is as common as some others, and seems something that would be more used by juveniles, rather than adults who have (generally) developed a more comprehensive method of debate.
So being in lockdown, I watched the movie.
And in the end, I was like, “So tell me something I don’t already know?”
It was entirely redundant and didn’t really talk about anything new, or that most people didn’t already know.
Just another sensationalist viewpoint to cash in on people outrage.
One of the really interesting aspects of the current flavor is that it is almost all set as the responsibility of the consumers. The manufacturers, Distributors, and Sellers have no role. Of course, in a global and interconnected world, holding any one industry or company responsible was a ridiculous premise.
This has changed somewhat with the creation of "Green Investors" and some small government changes. However, the responsibility to stop climate change is still mostly at the feet of individual consumers.
This seems..... less than possible.
It is. Industry is the biggest polluter on the planet, bar none. No, not even agriculture.
RiTides wrote: He tends to be very political, and has a knack for taking worthy causes but making them extremely polarizing...
However, I skimmed through the video and honestly this did not strike me as that. It seems to mostly be simply anti-corporate, and does things like focus on Al Gore and Obama being affected by corporations in making environmental decisions, but doesn't focus on politics.
So, I think this can stay open if we can just focus on environmentalism.
How is taking anti-corporate stances not a political view? Not that I have a problem with that as I find the subject interesting. And by focusing on environmentalism we have officially entered a discussion about politics which again, I have no problem talking about but lets not be in denial here.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Oh cool, another documentary we can laugh at the predictions it made in 20 years! An Inconvenient Truth has been about played out for its failures.
Almost like exaggerating to try and scare more people into action inevitably backfires.
AIC seems to have done fairly well for itself, particularly relative to anything Moore's put out. Whatever one wants to say about it, It's certainly done more to raise the profile and interest of its particular issue, with substantially better research creds, than anything Moore has done.
In the long term I see less exaggerated productions doing better. Save the exaggeration for vague implications in advertisements to lure in clickbait biters.
A lot of posts seem to be about my mention of the nirvana fallacy and how some people were surprised when I told them about it.
Well, don't feel bad, I didn't know about it till recently.
There was a debate about healthcare and we had the usual trolls who were opposed to any healthcare reforms in any form.
One of my posts mentioned some proposed healthcare reforms based on some countries could result in an american going from cancer diagnosis to first actual treatment in 2 weeks.
A troll stuck it's head up from under it's bridge and snarked "What if he doesn't have two weeks? Checkmate! Yuk yuk yuk."
Well obviously if someone hasn't been diagnosed until he has 2 weeks no system will help him and i said so, and was ignored.
It occurred to me the argument was clearly fallacious and I asked some experts of logical fallacies, like armored skeptic and logicked, about the situation.
One of them told me it was a" nirvana fallacy". I had never heard of that one and only looked because some troll hit me with it.
So hey, I only learned about it recently myself. I'm glad if I spread some useful knowledge around.
I mean, i always knew about it the idea and got frusterated when people brought it us, didnt know it was an actual Fallacy.
Problem is, pointing out a fallacy only works when the man themsevles beleives in fallacies.
If you point out to someone you they are using a fallacy, most of the time, they will not care and continue.
Yeah but you aren't really trying to convince that person, it's the other readers you are actually doing it for. Pointing out a fallacy is easier with a proper name to it. I certainly appreciate knowing 'nirvana fallacy' is a term.
The crazy thing about this particular instance, though, is how the documentary itself could fall victim to such a thing, and seemingly be completely unaware of it.
If you really want to save the environment, you work on solutions. It's like with health issues or retirement, if you make it sound hopeless, people don't take small health steps or bother saving at all.
If you give them real targets to shoot for and focus on the difference it can make, they actually work on it.
This documentary seems to basically say it's all hopeless, and by citing out of date technology, they don't even do that part well...
RiTides wrote: The crazy thing about this particular instance, though, is how the documentary itself could fall victim to such a thing, and seemingly be completely unaware of it.
I'd agree, but while never having seen the name before, I've seen the fallacy itself a lot lately. Mostly politics, so I'll forgo examples, but the 'If we can't X, we might as well not bother' has become distressingly common. And frustrating, because reality has never worked on the principle. Doing what you can and compromise has been the only effective solution in human history. 'Absolute solutions' are either a lie or an utter failure.
If you really want to save the environment, you work on solutions. It's like with health issues or retirement, if you make it sound hopeless, people don't take small health steps or bother saving at all.
If you give them real targets to shoot for and focus on the difference it can make, they actually work on it.
This documentary seems to basically say it's all hopeless, and by citing out of date technology, they don't even do that part well...
Yeah, that last bit is particularly galling. The point of this kind of thing should be to encourage action, not discourage it with hopelessness.
Its particularly odd with environmental issues since globally several 20th century environmental issues were actually solved. Acid Rain? Ozone depletion? Things can be fixed, and while letting things get bad is never good, recovery is a continual process.
I think the rapid benefits to wildlife in now-vacated areas from coronavirus also provides examples of how dramatic positive impacts can indeed happen.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the rapid benefits to wildlife in now-vacated areas from coronavirus also provides examples of how dramatic positive impacts can indeed happen.
We had the same thing back in the early noughties with the foot and mouth outbreak over here; locking down the countryside for a few months during spring did wonders for the bird and insect populations. Not great for the farmers, but shows how quickly nature can bounce back if we just give it some space.
A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.
Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah but you aren't really trying to convince that person, it's the other readers you are actually doing it for. Pointing out a fallacy is easier with a proper name to it. I certainly appreciate knowing 'nirvana fallacy' is a term.
It seems a variant on reductio ad absurdum to me, but it's a cool name, so I'll start using it when I encounter it now .
A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.
Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.
Yes, but everyone still needs power. And to heat their houses. And have food. CO2 emissions are about far more than transport.
Oh and with that figure they’re converting the 2-3 months most places will be on lockdown to an annual reduction. If you multiply it back by 4, to be a “monthly” reduction it’s closer to 25%, which funnily enough matches the figure at the top of the article reporting that China’s monthly emissions are down by about 25%.
Anthropogenic climate change is real and the lockdown is having a huge, if temporary, effect.
Matt Swain wrote: Yes, it takes courage to be a prominent liberal in modern america. As soon as anyone sticks their head up and makes a progressive statement, they are immediately sent threats of violence and even death.
Also since liberal views like worker's rights, far wages, etc are often frowned upon by corporate culture in america being a working person expressing liberal views can result in your losing your job for no given reason. I had family members lose their jobs over attending certain social or political rallies. Some employers even said if they saw their employees at a rally resisting his political POV they would be fired.
Sadly, no more...It has totally swung the other way, as in those with a liberal view are shouting from every news station and mountain top and those not following this tune are quickly condemned. The conservatives are those that are now being attacked (verbally and physically) for being a conservative, republican or heaven forbid, a Trump supporter.
I wonder if you're conflating experiences of very particular, predominantly online, contexts with the entirety of cultural interaction in the USA? Compare your overton window with that of literally anywhere else...
Easy E wrote: ... A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous. ...
Working from home created its own problems. Distributed (every home) power usage, instead of centralised (officeblocks and factories).
Even the tea-run is different to how it used to happen. The electrical power industries in the UK know to expect a surge in demand when the commercials come on during the evening soaps. The adverts start, and the millions of kettles in the UK's kitchens turn on. This is now day-long, not just after-hours.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140988383900063
So, demand has not really dropped, just changed. Human impact on the environment is not vehicular at the moment, but it is still there.
As for MM's movies...
Did the worst-case scenario not happen due to the message getting through?
I haven't watched any of them, but I have heard the gist of how they go. If the point got across, and people changed their ways, job done. Maybe.
Yeah, the pandemic has certainly caused a massive drop in traffic / driving, but a lot of other energy usage happens whether or not people are physically traveling to work.
Skinnereal - I think the problem in this particular case is that his documentary is mostly focused on belittling / knocking down the SOLUTION to the problem, rather than just pointing out how important the problem is itself.
He also completely ignored things like nuclear - there are lots of reasons why this might not be a great option, but to harp so much on renewables downtime / need of a backup and ignore that is just another strike against the intellectual honesty of this film.
Going from a Vegan Diet to near unrestrained consumption of nothing but McDonalds piles on the pounds, and wrecks your physical health?
Good findings, Sherlock....
That film actually made me more sympathetic to McDonald's. Which is nuts, right? Because even if he's only eating at McDonald's, he could have had a salad. They're on the menu, and people do order them. He also could have exercised hard to keep the pounds off. The whole thing was agenda-driven and ultimately arrives at an uninteresting conclusion -- that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you. Sherlock indeed.
Then you find out his GF is a vegan chef and the whole thing becomes comedy. And for the record, that gak she was serving him looked gross.
Edit: 60 Minutes basically wrote the book on skewing interviews and stories to fit their agenda. I was at a company that was the subject of one of their 'investigations', and saw both the raw footage of the interview and the version that aired. You guys have no idea how much they do...and how good they are at it. I had to give them a ton of credit even as the story was a silly hit piece...what they do is like art. The craftsmanship is really top-notch...the cuts, the zooms, etc.
Easy E wrote: ... A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous. ...
Working from home created its own problems. Distributed (every home) power usage, instead of centralised (officeblocks and factories).
Even the tea-run is different to how it used to happen. The electrical power industries in the UK know to expect a surge in demand when the commercials come on during the evening soaps. The adverts start, and the millions of kettles in the UK's kitchens turn on. This is now day-long, not just after-hours.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140988383900063
So, demand has not really dropped, just changed. Human impact on the environment is not vehicular at the moment, but it is still there.
As for MM's movies...
Did the worst-case scenario not happen due to the message getting through?
I haven't watched any of them, but I have heard the gist of how they go. If the point got across, and people changed their ways, job done. Maybe.
None come to mind as having changed minds or influenced behavior.
We certainly haven't seen any gun control changes or limits on foreign donations/influence, for example.
He just collected money from people already angry about those things.
A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.
Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.
I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.
I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.
I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.
That's... not how climate works. At all.
Human activities have increased carbon dioxide emissions, driving up temperatures. Extreme weather and melting polar ice are among the possible effects.
What is climate change?
The Earth's average temperature is about 15C but has been much higher and lower in the past.
There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times.
THAT was a quick grab from a BBC article on climate change, the first non-ad article through google. So a slowing or dropping of temps, according to you, won't be a result of dropping CO2 emissions. Then what's the point of trying to course correct?
Arguing against a point I didn't make, but I'll bite.
1) Current climate change occurs as a result of constant emissions, which are currently reduced, but not eliminated - so at best it's slowed down a bit, but certianly not reversed.
2) Climate =/ weather.
3) Because climate change is a gradual process over time, a one-time, brief, and limited reduction in emissions will have almost no effect on the process - it requires sustained effort to effect a sustained change.
Just Tony wrote: I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.
LOL
Paging Hugo Drax.... Paging Hugo Drax.... you are needed in the launch facility...... Mr. Drax, Paging.
Some lifeforms put out CO2, while other lifeforms recycle it. If only we could create some sort of balance where more CO2 wasn't being put out, so existing CO2 recycler lifeforms had a chance to do their jobs? Too bad that cycle got broken....
Skinnereal wrote: With polar ice melting and glaciers disappearing, that will take a very long time to recover from. Melting can happen fast, but re-freezing doesn't.
We are unlikely to benefit much from any attempts to slow climate change, but future generations will.
On this point I disagree; we are unlikely to benefit in certain ways from attempts to slow climate change. The climate itself comes to mind. But, say, reduced air pollution? That has tangible health benefits to people well within the span of their own lives.
I've heard that reduced human activity as made the waters of Venice so clear now people can actually see all the corpses the mafia's been dumping in the canals for so long.
Skinnereal wrote: We are unlikely to benefit much from any attempts to slow climate change, but future generations will.
On this point I disagree; we are unlikely to benefit in certain ways from attempts to slow climate change. The climate itself comes to mind. But, say, reduced air pollution? That has tangible health benefits to people well within the span of their own lives.
Yep, true.
I was referring more to the warming part of the problem, but yes, there are other benefits.
Off-the-line starts in an electric car are quite nice, so there's that, too
Elbows wrote: Michael Moore is still around? That's....unfortunate.
Oh dear. Does he have a bad reputation? I'll admit to having thrown this up without much knowledge of his work.
the right wing in America dislike him as he's got a liberal bent so he;'s seen as a bit polarizing
That's pretty much true. In america if a person is to the left of atilla the hun he's guilty of being polarizing and divisive,.
If a person it extreme far right the left if guilty of polarization dnd divisiveness for disliking him.
That isn't why Moore is disliked, or why he is disliked by both sides. He takes a current social issue and basically profiteers on it, while making arguments and using tactics that range from deceptive to outright dishonest. He edits interviews heavily to the point that the speaker seems to say the opposite of what they were actually saying when recorded, and pays for other interviewees to recite the views he's chosen to push. When called on it, he claims its valid to make the case because the issue is 'so important.' But what it actually does is undermine efforts towards real solutions, and undercuts efforts to make the issue a genuine concern (rather than part of 'fake news').
He chooses sensationalist over authenticity and helps build the circus of 'truth is about how you feel, not facts' that we have to deal with today.
I remember seeing Bowling for Columbine, and getting to the ending where Moore actively shows himself getting into Chartlon Heston's home for an interview under false pretenses, and basically tries to character assassinate him in his own living room, undercutting the message of the entire movie and made Moore look like a total donkey-cave. There's a way to make those points, and that was not it.
And Heston was slowly ailing at the time. It was this one incident that turned me 100% against Moore. He's a hack and can rot for all I care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, i always knew about it the idea and got frusterated when people brought it us, didnt know it was an actual Fallacy.
Problem is, pointing out a fallacy only works when the man themsevles beleives in fallacies.
If you point out to someone you they are using a fallacy, most of the time, they will not care and continue.
The problem with overemphasizing fallacies, is that people who have no idea what they actually are, tend to invoke them incorrectly to shut down debate. The two most abused are the "strawman argument" and "no true scotsman". Which is why I don't pay much mind to them in a serious, adult discussion unless they are painfully and ridiculously obvious, to the point where they are making discussion impossible.
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.
And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.
And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.
Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!
SlaveToDorkness - I mean, confirmation bias is a thing, but this is something that's obviously a problem long-term, and that's basically universally agreed upon. I do agree that *how* long-term has certainly been the subject of some bad hypotheses / confirmation bias / doomsaying in the past... but it's an issue, no matter how you slice it, or when the bill comes due.
The particular issue here was Michael Moore bashing all solutions to the problem (in a dishonest / non-credible way)... not the fact that there is a problem that needs dealing with.
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.
And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.
Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!
gorgon wrote: ...that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you.
Not that I disagree with your overall point but it was part of the rules of his experiment that he only ordered the larger sizes when asked whether he wanted them by the servers and he kept a tally of how many times and where he was asked that question.
Which is a valid point to make as the server asking that question is a psychological manipulation tactic to increase the likelihood of you ordering it.
I think he did also have some rules regarding what he was ordering from the menu as well (he had to order everything from the menu at least once). Also, the dressings available with the salads can make them higher in calories than the burgers.
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.
And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.
Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!
Not to mention it shows a lack of understanding about how science works. Sure, there are corrupt scientists and paid-for studies which have known issues. Pharmaceuticals are especially bad for it. But the idea that an entire area of science is entirely corrupt is preposterous, even without taking into account Insaniak's extremely valid point of "why?" If there really was no evidence of human-caused climate change scientists would find it. In fact, there are instances of the opposite of what you're describing where energy companies have commissioned studies that have later been criticised and shown to be incorrect through the application of the scientific method.
The particular issue here was Michael Moore bashing all solutions to the problem (in a dishonest / non-credible way)... not the fact that there is a problem that needs dealing with.
I admit, i have not watched it. However, this line illustrates to me how sticky of a wicket this issue will be.
There are tons of possible solutions, but they are all bad and will cause pain. Therefore, no one is willing to do any of them.
That's why everyone has been content to make it a "consumer" problem instead.
Bran Dawri wrote: And not only in climate change denial. The infamous Vaccines Cause Autism study originated from and was debunked in the same way.
The media are possibly partially to blame for some of this, I think. Reporting on science is, frankly, terrible because most journalists don't really understand the subject well enough either in a particular field or in general terms. They prefer soundbites over substance, which isn't great for reporting on anything complex. It's also a much better headline to say "Vaccines Proven Bad" than it is to post a follow-up headline that says "Science Right All Along". I think that can contribute to perpetuating misinformation in a lot of ways.
Of course, confirmation bias is still the biggest offender. It's not really difficult to show the anti-vaxxer stuff is rubbish, but it is ever-so-slightly more inconvenient.
gorgon wrote: ...that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you.
Not that I disagree with your overall point but it was part of the rules of his experiment that he only ordered the larger sizes when asked whether he wanted them by the servers and he kept a tally of how many times and where he was asked that question.
Which is a valid point to make as the server asking that question is a psychological manipulation tactic to increase the likelihood of you ordering it.
That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty and is a great example for why I dislike documentaries in general. I've yet to see one that doesn't pull crap like that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty ...
Yes, and no. I believe the point that he was trying to make here is that in this specific case upselling is directly harmful. It's not the same as a store trying to sell you, say, an extended warranty on the device you just bought.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That is just upselling. Every business that sells things does that, trying to specifically fault McDonalds for it smacks of intellectual dishonesty ...
Yes, and no. I believe the point that he was trying to make here is that in this specific case upselling is directly harmful. It's not the same as a store trying to sell you, say, an extended warranty on the device you just bought.
Paying for an extended warranty one does not need with money they do need to pay rent next month is pretty harmful. Selling a super size meal to someone who is healthy and will compensate for the extra calorie intake later in the day is not harmful. See what I mean?
I didn't say that it was a particularly good point. But when you're making a documentary on the harmful effects of a given product, it's not unreasonable to point out when the company selling that product is actively trying to sell you larger quantities of it.
But it IS unreasonable; any company selling you something is going to try to sell you more of it because that is how sales work. Making that out to be something unique about a specific company is, quite frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.
Which goes back to the topic at hand; every documentary I have seen has been like that, to the point where I am no longer interested in viewing them unless provided evidence it will play out otherwise. Planet of the Humans does not seem to be any different.
NinthMusketeer wrote: But it IS unreasonable; any company selling you something is going to try to sell you more of it because that is how sales work. Making that out to be something unique about a specific company is, quite frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.
Which goes back to the topic at hand; every documentary I have seen has been like that, to the point where I am no longer interested in viewing them unless provided evidence it will play out otherwise. Planet of the Humans does not seem to be any different.
I think in the case of Supersize Me it's not unreasonable at all. Yes, upselling is something every company does and an argument could be made about buying things you don't need with money that could be spent elsewhere, but that's something that's applicable to all upselling anyway (and seems a little extreme). In the specific case of McDonalds the point was that this upselling is harmful to your health as well as potentially harmful to your wallet. In that sense I see a big difference in the two things. That's not to say Supersize Me doesn't have problems with how it presents its arguments and even the basic premise of course.
But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.
NinthMusketeer wrote: But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.
But the issue is that people don't compensate in their diet. Sure, eating your recommended daily calorie intake in one meal (fries - 600 calories, non-sugar free soda - 400 calories, plus burger (540 calories for a big mac, 720 for a double quarter pounder with cheese) or salad (440 calories for Bacon Ranch Grilled Chicken Salad, 670 calories for Southwest Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Salad) and potentially sauces for the fries) might not be harmful if you are exercising and eat nothing else all day. But most people are not exercising enough to offset such a huge meal and are not only eating that meal all day.
Offering such huge portions is detrimental to the public health because it ignores the reality that not everyone is living a lifestyle in which that meal will not have a harmful effect.
I don't think there's that big of a disagreement here... i.e. I kind of agree with you both
I also found that documentary technique kind of transparent and not very convincing. As NinthMusketeer says, literally every retail establishment uses upselling...
At the same time, pointing out that the portions were too large and getting an even larger one was a bad thing was obviously useful.
What happened to "Planet of the Humans" though guys
NinthMusketeer wrote: But it is not inherently harmful to one's health; eating a supersize meal is not harmful unless the person does not compensate for that in their diet overall. On its own, one meal being supersized means exactly nothing--it is the total that matters. It is a fundamental twisting/ignorance of logic that in my experience is pervasive in the documentary scene.
But the issue is that people don't compensate in their diet. Sure, eating your recommended daily calorie intake in one meal (fries - 600 calories, non-sugar free soda - 400 calories, plus burger (540 calories for a big mac, 720 for a double quarter pounder with cheese) or salad (440 calories for Bacon Ranch Grilled Chicken Salad, 670 calories for Southwest Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Salad) and potentially sauces for the fries) might not be harmful if you are exercising and eat nothing else all day. But most people are not exercising enough to offset such a huge meal and are not only eating that meal all day.
Offering such huge portions is detrimental to the public health because it ignores the reality that not everyone is living a lifestyle in which that meal will not have a harmful effect.
I feel that people carry the responsibility for consequences of what they buy, unless the seller was deceptive about what was being sold. The way you phrase this seems to me like it hinges on the logic 'people buying the meal are not responsible for their own diet', which is the sort of upside-down logic I am faulting documentaries for. I have a feeling I may be misinterpreting though, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yeah, a good documentary is like a good news story. It should lay out the fact without misreprenting them and in context, then let the viewer decide how they feel about it.
Bran Dawri wrote: Yeah, a good documentary is like a good news story. It should lay out the fact without misreprenting them and in context, then let the viewer decide how they feel about it.
A good presentation needs a narrative; it makes it more interesting and easier to follow.
However, that doesn’t mean you should ignore evidence that contradicts your narrative and it certainly doesn’t give you licence to distort evidence to fit your narrative.
Not sure if it's that sinister/malicious. According to the article the copyright strike was from a single individual (a photographer who had some footage used in the documentary) rather than a corporation trying to silence the movie. That could all be a smokescreen of course, and it may well have been "corporate interests" acting through this individual that made the infringement claim. Regardless, the article sensationalises things a little and the response from the filmmakers is a little overblown even if I can understand their frustration. This is just the way YouTube works, sadly. If a copyright infringement claim is made they immediately take down the video and inform the creator. Only if the creator appeals do they then actually bother to look at the specifics of the case. In this situation, assuming the article is accurate, I can't see how the footage doesn't count as fair use, though there are some nuances to that caveat that mean it's not always as straight forward as people think to use that defence.
I do think the YT system is massively open to abuse. It has been abused many times for many different reasons but I also don't know what a better solution would begiven the sheer volume of content that gets added to YT every day. Google are liable for copyright infringement in material they host on their sites so it's in their own corporate interest to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright claims.
I highly doubt that any corporate interests care enough to go to, or that Youtube's copyright system is stringent enough to require, such levels of subterfuge.
It is just the photographer who disagrees with his footage being used in such a way.
