
Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down - julesnp
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down
======
eloff
I disagree with trying to deplatform ideas you don't agree with.

Engage with them, show them the error of their thinking, but if you drive it
underground you just trap those people in a bubble filled with like minded
people and the chance they change their mind approaches zero.

Plus there is always the chance you're the one who's wrong - even if you're on
the side with the widely accepted viewpoint.

All innovation at least begins with a dissenting voice.

~~~
tekstar
What if it's not an "idea", but actually a provably false statement?

Sadly, it's beneficial to media companies to give provably false statements
airtime because they are controverial, which drives views and clicks which
drives revenue.

But for society is it beneficial to let false statements have a platform?

~~~
nathanaldensr
How many times does your tired old argument have to be refuted? Your idea only
works if there is a perfect arbiter of "truth." There are nearly no truths in
human existence; math probably comes closest, and yet even there look how many
things in history were "true" based on knowledge of the time (Earth as the
center of the universe is an obvious one).

You fail to consider that _humans_ implement rules (e.g., your movie is
illegal because it's not true) and humans are fundamentally corrupt, selfish
creatures.

~~~
tekstar
Your comment is a straw man attack, so perhaps cool it with the "tired old".

Provably false statements do not require perfect arbtration of truth.

For example, the president says something on TV, and a talking head straight-
face states "that never happened". This is the current level of discourse in
the USA.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
It'll never stay limited to just provably false statements. The article we're
discussing is evidence enough of that.

~~~
p1necone
The article linked cites various rebuttals (by actual scientists) of what
seems like a large amount of factually incorrect information in this
documentary - are you saying that the documentary actually _is_ factual?

------
centimeter
As someone who disagrees with Moore 99% of the time, this is absurd, and tells
you more about the state of institutional "experts" and "science" than it does
about the contents of Moore's movie.

Moore can publish (obvious!) bullshit for years and never really get called on
it by "experts" or popular media. Now, he publishes something that goes
against the dogma of a highly cathedralized and politicized field with such
low predictive power that it hardly qualifies as a science at all, and there's
a huge (and very successful) censorship effort.

I wonder, is the divergence between the predictive power of the field and the
strength of its dogma enforcement an anomaly, or is it to be expected that
fields with low predictive power will more aggressively defend their
orthodoxy?

~~~
leephillips
'Moore can publish (obvious!) bullshit for years and never really get called
on it by "experts" or popular media'

He gets called on it constantly. His reputation is so bad that it would never
occur to me to bother watching this film.

'goes against the dogma'

Or, contains objective falsehoods and libels.

~~~
centimeter
When's the last time the publisher canceled a release of one of his films?

> Or, contains objective falsehoods and libels.

All of his movies have this, and they still don't provoke this kind of
reaction.

------
machinehermit
There is nothing more disturbing than this poison in the minds of young people
that an idea they don't agree with should be destroyed.

It just feels like it is a matter of time until we have something as insane as
the French Revolution in the US.

~~~
happytoexplain
On the perfectly opposite side, personally, I feel that the encouragement to
think of any content removals and user bans, regardless of context or
platform, as "censorship" and "destroying ideas you don't agree with" is
easily the most disturbing social trend of any significant popularity that
I've seen in my life. I think it may be extremely poisonous to the minds of
the young, and this trend, if any, is the one I think could lead to violence -
especially when proponents frequently like to throw out such ironic phrases as
"this can only end via a French Revolution" and "they (the bad guys! not us!)
want a civil war".

~~~
machinehermit
Makes no sense.

------
chomp
I found a more substantial rebuttal to the film than "we need to deplatform
this ASAP"

[https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/skepticism-is-
health...](https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/skepticism-is-healthy-but-
planet-of-the-humans-is-toxic/)

~~~
NotAnAccountNO
Very informative thank you. From this rebuttal I see that the movie probably
packages true information, some of it outdated, in a provocative way. The only
fully scientific rebuttal is to run the experiment: run the whole economy
without fossil fuels or nuclear, and see how much it looks like the middle-
ages, how much it looks like utopia. My guess is 80/20 on the middle-ages
side, but who know.

------
Cryptophunk
I think it would be a great cultural event if scientists made a documentary as
a rebuttal. I've seen this before where they rather deplatform than confront.
Maybe they don't want to confront certain facts. Should be interesting to
watch.

~~~
leephillips
Should a planetary scientist spend her time making documentaries to rebut the
flat earth people? Who is "deplatforming"? They are asking for the film's
creators to face up to their mistakes, retract the film, and apologize. Nobody
can take Moore's platform away.

~~~
thu2111
Er, a film distribution company already dropped the movie and refused to
distribute it further. Moore's platform is film. That's actually people taking
his platform away.

~~~
leephillips
They (regrettably) decided to continue to distribute it after all, even though
they say they know it is garbage, so as not to seem to be censors. Also, it
was far from the only platform that the film had. This is not analogous to
actual deplatforming, that goes on on college campuses, for example.

~~~
thu2111
Glad to hear it! I don't actually like Moore, not being a left leaning
activist type myself. But he should be able to speak if people want to listen.

As for deplatforming, come on. There is more than one college campus in the
world. If it's deplatforming to kick people out of colleges it's definitely
deplatforming to bully film distributors into dropping films.

------
say_it_as_it_is
I'm definitely going to watch it, now. Heterodoxy is more important than ever
in society. I'm capable of disagreeing with an argument and want the freedom
to do so.

If what Moore presents is taken out of context, which is probably what is
happening here, it doesn't matter what he presents.

------
emilecantin
One thing I see parroted often and that the article alludes to, is the "fact"
that electric vehicles pollute almost as much as regular cars because the
electricity they use is generated in coal-firing plants.

What I hate the most about this argument is that it's often presented as a
universal fact, and while it may be true in some areas in the world, it's
definitely not true everywhere. A lot of Europe has nuclear electricity, for
example, and here in Canada we're mostly on hydro power.

The overall numbers start to look very different when you assume hydro power
instead of coal, for example, and I bet the film doesn't mention that (haven't
seen it, though).

EDIT: I found a source describing my province's electricity mix:
[https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-
en...](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-eng.html)

Turns out all fossil fuels combined contribute less than 1% of out electric
capacity. A significant part of that 1% is in remote communities such as the
Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which uses a diesel plant. This means that the
percentage is even smaller in the "general" mix outside of these communities.

~~~
soperj
Said as someone who lives in a hydro power province. Hydro is incredible
harmful. It ruins whole ecosystems in ways that an oil spill never could.

~~~
emilecantin
Somewhat true, but it doesn't harm the environment from the same angle. The #1
enemy right now is greenhouse gases, and you can't deny that hydro power
produces much less of it than coal.

You're right that there's a real impact on ecosystems; flooding large areas
and such. However, I'd describe it more as a disruption than a destruction; 30
years later the ecosystems around it have adapted and the reservoir serves the
ecological function of a large lake. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better
than burning coal.

~~~
Gibbon1
> and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal.

I can't vouch for this but I read stuff like this

[https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-
substantial-...](https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-
role-global-warming/)

td;dr: Bacteria in reservoirs decompose organic material trapped behind the
dam releasing CO2 and methane.

~~~
mcswell
Ok, but the link doesn't seem to say what would happen to that organic
material if it weren't trapped behind the dam. Wouldn't it decompose anyway?
(or get turned into fish, but I would expect that to happen either way)

~~~
soperj
generally organic material in a forest doesn't get decomposed into methane.

------
Press2forEN
Instead of censorship, perhaps we should codify universally acceptable ideas
and put them into a book. This book would be distributed to everyone that
wants one and once a week we would gather and read a portion of it together
and receive guidance from an expert on the subject. Over time this should lead
to a more virtuous society.

I think this would be preferable to the clumsy "whack-a-mole" system we
currently use to silence unacceptable ideas.

~~~
theandrewbailey
What happens when one of your "universally acceptable ideas" aren't acceptable
anymore, or gets proven wrong? More importantly, who gets to decide what's
included in the first place?

~~~
wafn
The Council of Niceties obviously

------
baron_harkonnen
If you claim your film is a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows” and the
immediate reaction from the 'priesthood' is that this work is heresy and must
be banned... then it looks like you've really hit the mark.

~~~
ceejayoz
Maybe.

"Cancer can be cured by drinking methylmercury."

"That's dangerous and you should stop saying it."

"Looks like I hit the mark!"

~~~
baron_harkonnen
My point is that the film claims to challenge sacred cows and that the
reaction alone is enough to show that _that_ claim is correct, not that all or
any of the specific claims in the film are.

There are likely many films that make ludicrous claims about climate change
but even absurd ones rarely get called out as dangerous enough to warrant
being banned. When films/books/etc get this strong of a reaction there is
usually something in there that is worth understanding why it hit such a
nerve.

...or it could just be good marketing.

~~~
ceejayoz
> My point is that the film claims to challenge sacred cows and that the
> reaction alone is enough to show that that claim is correct

And it's a bad point.

People who claim to be "challenging sacred cows" are _often_ just making
provocative, misleading, or downright false claims. This has been Moore's
shtick for decades now, in fact.

A strong reaction is not always proof of "sacred cows". Sometimes it's just
warranted.

------
allemagne
From the letter "calling for [the film] to be taken down" that the article is
based on:
[https://twitter.com/joshfoxfilm/status/1253572812591247360](https://twitter.com/joshfoxfilm/status/1253572812591247360)

>Summary: The new movie Executive Produced and promoted by Michael Moore,
Directed by Jeff Gibbs and distributed by Films for Action, PLANET OF THE
HUMANS is unscientific, flies in the face of decades of renewable energy
science, engineering and research and is counter productive in the age of
urgent need for Climate Action. Because the film is based in misinformation
and not in truth, we request that the film be retracted by its creators and
distributors and an apology rendered for its misleading content.

------
jxramos

        Describing itself as a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows”
        temporarily took down the film after describing it as “full of misinformation”
        “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy.
        the film includes “various distortions, half-truths and lies”
    

It is written, therefore it must be true. They crossed my accusation
threshold, no more thinking required, case closed. But seriously I'd love to
see their actual rebuttals to the film. In the meantime I'll check out the
free YouTube link they include in the article.

~~~
leephillips
"I'd love to see their actual rebuttals to the film"

Then all you have to do is follow the link in the article to the letter that
contains those rebuttals.

~~~
jxramos
Good eyes, I definitely glossed over the linkage in the parent article. Nice
stance they're taking with all the transparency about their decisions. Pretty
level headed public response.

> Ultimately, we decided to put it back up because we believe media literacy,
> critique and debate is the best solution to the misinformation in the film.
> [https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-
> presents-...](https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-presents-
> planet-of-the-humans/)

I can't tell if that's the climate experts they refer to but these film
advocates breath of freshair response is equal to or more newsworthy than the
original article. I'm really digging their tone and open invitation.

------
ttonkytonk
The main thesis of the film, that the _essential_ issue is not climate change
but runaway consumption, is hard to deny.

------
clairity
wow, this is great marketing for the film. now i want to see it to see what
all the controversy is about.

i've seen a couple michael moore docs before, and while i often sympathize
with his position on a given topic, i'm rarely impressed by his persuasive
documentary powers.

------
ohiovr
High energy civilization is not a birth right. Just thought I would put a line
out there for both leftists and right wingers to censor. And I will be happy
when they do and they will.

------
cybert00th
I see dangerous is in quotes - having read the article and seen the vitriol
and scorn heaped on this movie, that fact begs the question, who is actually
in harms way here?

------
ykevinator
But we all agree even if true, this is less bad than global warming right?

------
hindsightbias
Perfect is the enemy of the good.

------
artur_makly
this doc illustrates the enormous realities of energy challenges with sober
clarity often exposed by Jancovici
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGt4XwBbCvA&feature=share](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGt4XwBbCvA&feature=share)

------
sleepysysadmin
Michael Moore is ultra-leftist environmentalist.I watched the video entirely
because climate experts are so angry.

The video starts off explaining that he is an environmentalist. Certainly
makes the video provocative.

The actual video seems to suggest what the right-wing has been saying for 20
years. VERY interesting to see Michael Moore agreeing with the right-wing
folks.

Makes you wonder if perhaps that he is right here.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I think Moore makes some really good points that need to be addressed by
environmentalists but taking down the film should not be the first form of
action.

3 points that are absolutely true. 1) that most green power is backed up by
fossil fuels. 2) that solar and wind power hardware needs to be replaced on a
regular cycle and that every cycle deals with adding pollution to the
environment. and 3) that the real problem is the size of the human population.
There are too many people overpowering the planet's available resources.

They are uncomfortable issues but they need to be addressed rather than swept
under the floor because we don't like them. If we don't address them they will
never be fixed.

~~~
valuearb
What good points?

1)Duh. Green power (except nuclear) cant just scale whenever it is needed, sun
is there during the day only, wind is there when wind is there, etc. Why is
this even an issue? Over time green power and power storage technologies will
get cheaper and flexible, allowing us to use green power as higher and higher
percentages of our power needs.

2) Who ever said that green power hardware had some magical resistance to wear
and obsolescence? Obsolescence is great because it means newer hardware works
better and can have lower environmental impacts.

3) Something that’s been a mainstream topic for over 50 years, so what’s the
point? what’s their and your solution? We know that increasing living
standards and empowering women leads to lower birth rates, the US and Japan
are supposedly already below replacement level birth rates. What else do you
propose?

~~~
ttonkytonk
The first two points are under-appreciated and it shouldn't be assumed that
the environmental cost is negligible.

As for the third point, I don't think the film comes right out and says there
are too many people, though it is implied. Specifically the film claims that
in the last 200 years the population _as well as_ the consumption rate per
person has increased tenfold, for a total increased impact of 100 times.

~~~
valuearb
Under appreciated or not, why the complaints? What alternatives are there that
are economically competitive?

It’s ridiculous to complain that technologies that significantly reduce our
environmental impact aren’t zero impact. It’s throwing babies out with the
bath water levels of cluelessness.

------
globular-toast
I disagree with censorship in principle so don't support these "climate
experts".

I am no climate change sceptic. It's easy to see that our way of life is far
beyond sustainable and has developed in ways which are now harmful to us
individually and as a species. It's easy to see and I will support any change
which is driven by sustainability first.

But I'm now beginning to see why people are against the "green" movement. They
are not starting with sustainability. They are simply trying to profit from
giving people the same conveniences but with a "green" badge slapped on it. If
it was about sustainability it would be easy to debunk a film like this, but
instead they just want to silence it.

------
zelienople
Everyone is so angry at Michael Moore because they are terminally
anthropocentric. The point of the film is that we need to achieve fewer
humans, and this makes the anthropocentrists rabidly angry.

Moore makes an excellent point: creating solar panels and wind farms requires
fossil fuels. Doing so in such a way as to accommodate perpetual growth is
unsustainable.

We need to prune the human species to a sustainable level and keep it there.

We need forced sterilization, now. We need to limit waste and useless economic
activity, now. Or else we will become extinct.

COVID-19 is clear and unequivocal evidence that population density has reached
unsustainable levels. We are looking at The Great Filter.

We can have innovation, technical progress, and a good life. But we can only
do that on a smaller scale.

~~~
morninglight
Millions have viewed the video, yet so few understand its message. "Growth is
Good", but population growth without limits is suicide.

Forced sterilization is not the only answer. Fifty years ago, Paul Ehrlich
explained the problem in considerable detail, and he has offered numerous
solutions. Today, most people have never heard of him. (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich)
)

Perhaps Covid-19.is too tame. Just wait. If we are unwilling to live in
harmony with nature, the problem will soon be resolved - one way or another. (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWMyWr9_CVo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWMyWr9_CVo)
)

