Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
It's a terrible movie that is full of holes with plenty of scientists speaking out about it.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/...s-misdirection
I genuinely regret wasting my time on it. I was making a list of everything wrong in there while watching it. In the end, it's not about climate change or corruption in the environmental movement. It's a Malthusian argument for population controls under the guise of concern for climate change. |
Michael Moore was on Stephen Colbert just before the movie was released talking about it, saying everyone should watch it, they made it free to maximize viewership and that although it seems depressing, there's a glimmer of hope at the end.
We actually watched it about a week after my post. First off, Michael Moore isn't even in it, so there is no comedic edge to break the depressive tone. The movie criticizes solar and wind power (which is fair in many cases) for the first third of the movie and then moves on to biomass power, and I agree that's arguably the worst form of power generation, destroying countless hectors of living, breathing forests with diesel powered machines just to burn the trees to produce electricity. How in the hell can anyone think that's a good idea?
And in all of that, I did not get the glimmer of hope Moore spoke about. They didn't offer any alternatives. Nothing about hydro electricity. Nuclear was mentioned once with a negative connotation. Neither of those are perfect, but pollution and\or environmental damage is at least localized.
The movie exposes more dumb, corrupt shit happening in the U.S. but it lacks balance.