Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down

I disagree with trying to deplatform ideas you don&#x27;t agree with.<p>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.<p>Plus there is always the chance you&#x27;re the one who&#x27;s wrong - even if you&#x27;re on the side with the widely accepted viewpoint.<p>All innovation at least begins with a dissenting voice.

As someone who disagrees with Moore 99% of the time, this is absurd, and tells you more about the state of institutional &quot;experts&quot; and &quot;science&quot; than it does about the contents of Moore&#x27;s movie.<p>Moore can publish (obvious!) bullshit for years and never really get called on it by &quot;experts&quot; 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&#x27;s a huge (and very successful) censorship effort.<p>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?

There is nothing more disturbing than this poison in the minds of young people that an idea they don&#x27;t agree with should be destroyed.<p>It just feels like it is a matter of time until we have something as insane as the French Revolution in the US.

I found a more substantial rebuttal to the film than &quot;we need to deplatform this ASAP&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.filmsforaction.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;skepticism-is-healthy-but-planet-of-the-humans-is-toxic&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.filmsforaction.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;skepticism-is-health...</a>

I think it would be a great cultural event if scientists made a documentary as a rebuttal. I&#x27;ve seen this before where they rather deplatform than confront. Maybe they don&#x27;t want to confront certain facts. Should be interesting to watch.

I&#x27;m definitely going to watch it, now. Heterodoxy is more important than ever in society. I&#x27;m capable of disagreeing with an argument and want the freedom to do so.<p>If what Moore presents is taken out of context, which is probably what is happening here, it doesn&#x27;t matter what he presents.

One thing I see parroted often and that the article alludes to, is the &quot;fact&quot; that electric vehicles pollute almost as much as regular cars because the electricity they use is generated in coal-firing plants.<p>What I hate the most about this argument is that it&#x27;s often presented as a universal fact, and while it may be true in some areas in the world, it&#x27;s definitely not true everywhere. A lot of Europe has nuclear electricity, for example, and here in Canada we&#x27;re mostly on hydro power.<p>The overall numbers start to look very different when you assume hydro power instead of coal, for example, and I bet the film doesn&#x27;t mention that (haven&#x27;t seen it, though).<p>EDIT: I found a source describing my province&#x27;s electricity mix: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cer-rec.gc.ca&#x2F;nrg&#x2F;ntgrtd&#x2F;mrkt&#x2F;nrgsstmprfls&#x2F;qc-eng.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cer-rec.gc.ca&#x2F;nrg&#x2F;ntgrtd&#x2F;mrkt&#x2F;nrgsstmprfls&#x2F;qc-en...</a><p>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 &quot;general&quot; mix outside of these communities.

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.<p>I think this would be preferable to the clumsy &quot;whack-a-mole&quot; system we currently use to silence unacceptable ideas.

If you claim your film is a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows” and the immediate reaction from the &#x27;priesthood&#x27; is that this work is heresy and must be banned... then it looks like you&#x27;ve really hit the mark.

From the letter &quot;calling for [the film] to be taken down&quot; that the article is based on: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;joshfoxfilm&#x2F;status&#x2F;1253572812591247360" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;joshfoxfilm&#x2F;status&#x2F;1253572812591247360</a><p>&gt;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.

<p><pre><code> 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” </code></pre> It is written, therefore it must be true. They crossed my accusation threshold, no more thinking required, case closed. But seriously I&#x27;d love to see their actual rebuttals to the film. In the meantime I&#x27;ll check out the free YouTube link they include in the article.

The main thesis of the film, that the <i>essential</i> issue is not climate change but runaway consumption, is hard to deny.

wow, this is great marketing for the film. now i want to see it to see what all the controversy is about.<p>i&#x27;ve seen a couple michael moore docs before, and while i often sympathize with his position on a given topic, i&#x27;m rarely impressed by his persuasive documentary powers.

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.

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?

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

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

this doc illustrates the enormous realities of energy challenges with sober clarity often exposed by Jancovici <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wGt4XwBbCvA&amp;feature=share" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wGt4XwBbCvA&amp;feature=share</a>

Michael Moore is ultra-leftist environmentalist.I watched the video entirely because climate experts are so angry.<p>The video starts off explaining that he is an environmentalist. Certainly makes the video provocative.<p>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.<p>Makes you wonder if perhaps that he is right here.

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.<p>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&#x27;s available resources.<p>They are uncomfortable issues but they need to be addressed rather than swept under the floor because we don&#x27;t like them. If we don&#x27;t address them they will never be fixed.

I disagree with censorship in principle so don&#x27;t support these &quot;climate experts&quot;.<p>I am no climate change sceptic. It&#x27;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&#x27;s easy to see and I will support any change which is driven by sustainability first.<p>But I&#x27;m now beginning to see why people are against the &quot;green&quot; movement. They are not starting with sustainability. They are simply trying to profit from giving people the same conveniences but with a &quot;green&quot; 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.

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.<p>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.<p>We need to prune the human species to a sustainable level and keep it there.<p>We need forced sterilization, now. We need to limit waste and useless economic activity, now. Or else we will become extinct.<p>COVID-19 is clear and unequivocal evidence that population density has reached unsustainable levels. We are looking at The Great Filter.<p>We can have innovation, technical progress, and a good life. But we can only do that on a smaller scale.