Michael Moore for Dummies
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies. I think green anarchist turned film-maker Craig Rosebraugh once did some good. When he organized the “Liberation Collective” in old town Portland, or organized protests against police excesses, he was doing something useful. When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”. One of the most effective bits of Rosebraugh’s new documentary, “Greedy Lying Bastards”, is when it shows a billboard put up by the skeptic Heartland Institute, with a picture of Kaczynski, and the legend “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”. But Heartland’s idiotic mistake has nothing to do with the facts of global warming. It doesn’t show that the medieval warming period didn’t happen. It doesn’t prove that the warming in the last century was unprecedented and man-made.
Rosebraugh is shameless in using guilt by association. He tries to give the impression that global warming “deniers” tend to be American knuckledraggers, ignoring sane, smart people around the world who doubt the global warming hysteria. For example, he forgets to tell us that the three most prominent Canadian skeptics boycotted Heartland because of the above-mentioned own goal.
Left-wing American documentaries, like this one, or Michael Moore’s, or one I saw about the evils of Walmart, tend to insult the viewer by bombarding her with one side of the story, and words like “lying”, “greedy” and “bastards”. Watching Rosebraugh’s movie, every time the narrator said that there is lying and greed on the skeptic side of the debate, I wondered whether he’d consider if these vices occur among the promoters of climate change “theory”. He did not.
Unflattering shots of one’s opponents, selective information about funding, tear-jerking anecdotes about sea level rise, and shots of hurricanes and fires, with no statistical analysis to show if these events really did increase during the 20th century. All this Rosebraugh learned from Michael Moore, who has been criticized for “dumbing down the left”. Rosebraugh does the same with environmentalism.
To be fair, Rosebraugh did mention billionaire George Soros funding warm-mongering organizations, as well as the mega-rich Koch brothers backing “climate change deniers”, but only in passing.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO of Exxon says global warming is not unprecedented and anthropogenic, because it’s in his company’s interests. This has no bearing at all on whether or not it’s true. It’s the old “self-serving argument” fallacy. Just about any argument and its opposite serves someone: you have to figure out whether it’s right or wrong independently of interests.
Rosebraugh chooses the most plausible-sounding defenders, and implausible critics, of the anthropogenic global warming position. Worse, he almost avoids citing any of the numerous scientifically-trained skeptics. An honest approach would be to interview Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, who first broke Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Or Joanne Nova, or Anthony Watts, the creator of Watts Up With That. Or Judith Curry, a scientist of whom Michael Mann revealingly wrote “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”. Skeptical professor Richard Lindzen does appear, but not for long enough to explain his rejection of climate change hysteria.
For his leading climate skeptic, Rosebraugh chooses Christopher Monckton, who, by carefully selecting from his presentations carefully, is made to look like a nut. In reality, he’s merely eccentric. If you read his stuff, Monckton has a grasp of logic unheard of among warm-mongers, misanthropists and fluffies. Rosebraugh tries to refute Monckton’s views on the grounds that he isn’t “a scientist”. This is a variant of the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”.
This implies that you must accept what scientists say. So what do you do when they disagree? Two giants of science, Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson, recently had a debate about kin selection theory. Dawkins used the number of scientists who support him as an argument. Wilson showed no mercy: “It should be born in mind that if science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston and navigating with geocentric maps.”
Michael Moore
I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity.
I first became a skeptic when I read climate “scientists” using the word “consensus”. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with scientific method knows that that word is not in a scientist’s vocabulary.
In contrast, the argument of Rosebraugh’s documentary, like the global warming movement in general, relies on “scientific concensus”. It can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Rosebraugh deals with the “Climategate” revelations of 2009 as follows:
· he presents the scandal as a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen climate talks
· he claims, without evidence, that the emails were “stolen” from the CRU in East Anglia
· he uncritically accepts Michael Mann’s assurance that the emails were quoted “out of context”
· he fails to mention that all the emails are online, so we can judge if phrases like “Hide the decline”, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith?”, “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” and “We have to get rid of the medieval warming period” are less damning in context – they aren’t
· he claims that the various inquiries exonerated the warmists, without saying how
Another technique he borrows from Michael Moore, is showing crowds of conservatives waving flags, wearing garish outfits, and holding up signs with ridiculously exaggerated warnings about Obama introducing communism. And rejecting climate change panic. The implication is, if you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, next thing, you’ll be in favor of waterboarding.
Related articles
- Movie review: “Greedy Lying Bastards” a global warming documentary with sobering evidence (denverpost.com)
- Greedy Lying Bastards (powerlineblog.com)
- ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ film uses a fake cover photo, recycled PR from 2005, cites opinion of a ‘truther’, is directed by a former ELF spokeman and uses a big dose of hate to make its point (wattsupwiththat.com)
UseToLikePotatoes says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:16 am
“@alexwade: Regarding the “safety” of gene modified plants by biotech companies. Perhaps you would like some neomycin or plastics precursor in your potatoes:
http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/plastic-producing-potato-sites-vandalized/
”
“UseToLikePotatoes”; you fear an amino acid based polymer? Hmmm… then better avoid forests… they’re made from polymers…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignin
…by evil GM trees. Oh, that was a joke. By non GM trees.
RE Dennis Ray Wingo says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm
————————————
Dennis, that is an excellent mini-essay in itself and far outshines the one being discussed in this thread. I suggest you expand on it and publish it here or elsewhere.
The truth of global warming, which appears less and less threatening as the debate rages on, is much less important than the response to it, should it prove to be an imminent or even long-term danger. I agree with you that the solutions being proposed are knee-jerk Luddite nonsense and potentially worse than the disease, so to speak.
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.
I like to rephrase the old statement “I care about women’s rights but I’m not a feminist” for my view: “I care about the environment but I’m not an environmentalist,” as I don’t burn down buildings.
Sam the First says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:13 am
“Many other posters have remarked on the negaitve effects of “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” and of the remark about burning empty buildings not being terrorism. These questionable statements – both certain to antagonise large numbers of readers – could and should have been removed before publication.”
Call for censorship and sanitizing contentious statements? Not supported.
@george Montgomery
You couldn’t be more wrong about Popper. To think that Popper would use “95%”
as a demarcation is laughable (and also sad).
And as to:
“And why should we, the film viewers – scientifically literate and illiterate alike, go to the trouble of judging the “climategate” emails when they have been reviewed by multiple panels/committees/inquiries containing experts such as Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, professor emertius University of Edinburgh?”
Have you heard of thinking for one’s self?
Both thumbs up for Dennis Wingo and engineering physics! His comments should be in a main post in its own right here.
Rod: “They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property.”
As Johanna says, you have completely lost the plot. The right to enjoy property you have acquired or inhabit is a basic human right and quite possibly the most important one beyond the right to live safely on that property. Attacks on property, whether it be homes or automobiles, are reprehensible and should be punished by very long stays in the Big House. The perpetrators of such crimes think they own all property and can destroy it on a whim. They base that on the ridiculous belief that they are serving some greater good. Of course, if you took ownership by force of their property, say of the vans/automobiles they own as they drive around destroying the properties of others, they’d go into shock.
People will defend their property with their lives, which should tell you something of the value it holds for people. You can question that value, criticize it, but if you get shot trying to destroy someone’s property, don’t come crying to me. As far as I’m concerned, the right to defend your property is far more important than the individual life of some miserable malcontent.
People who burn down houses, whether they are inhabited or not, are destroying the wealth of the commons as it were. Any house can provide shelter for a family and increase the comfort and health of that family. When one house is occupied, it means another house has likely become available for another family to occupy. We are talking about “hearth and home” here.
I don’t know if you live in an apartment or a house, or if you rent or own, but if someone burned down your abode, you’d certainly feel terrorized. Burning structures is something invading armies do when they occupy another country. It’s used to control the population by means of terror. Eco-terrorists have earned the name they’ve been accorded. Don’t apologize for them or defend their acts as rational somehow.
I am an environmentalist, I want a better environment now and for the future. What really annoys me is the diversion of billions to useless CO2 reduction scams. All it has done has enriched bloated hypocrites like Al Gore, and provided certain, so called, eco loons with financing to push a political rather than environmental programme. We could have had cleaner engines, more efficient power stations and a greener economy without all of this CAGW nonsense and we could have had more jobs and less poverty. These people owe us the apology not the other way around.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.”
Some of the things I enjoy about WUWT are the funny, sarcastic, ironic, and other crazy things people write.
jeanparisot says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:52 am
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike on an ELF guy, or not?
———————————————————————————-
Only if they’ve killed someone and been convicted in court. There can be no more humane way to execute someone than with a Hellfire missile. It kills instantly and the victim will never know what hit him.
(I’m being facetious. Sort of.)
Thanks, but no thanks. I spent a good part of my younger years getting out and walking, climbing and, occasionally, skiing on the environment. For pleasure.
I’ve met more than a couple of Sociology students who almost never left the built-up area and assumed, for some strange reason, that a person who actually studied and worked in Chemistry likely spent their day injecting noxious compounds into rabbits’ eyes. They did, however, for some equally strange reason, consider themselves “environmentally aware”.
If you don’t own the building it be criminal damage. If you do own it, you might have problems getting insurance on another one. The neighbors might be more than alarmed if you don’t give them advanced warning (they probably will be in either case). Laws pertaining to fire regulations often exist for good reasons.
Do you realize yet what a foolish way that was to begin what might otherwise have been a good article?
Like many before me, I take exception to your opening sentence:
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
But I would like to take it one step further and and posit that the majority of the readers of WUWT care more about the environment than those leading the modern environmental movement! Here’s why:
1. WUWT readers understand that ‘the environment’, like climate, is a non-linear, chaotic system that is in constant flux. They recognize this dynamic and would never dream of trying to force the environment to adhere to some idyllic fantasy born of romantic notions of bygone days. They are realists and understand how harmful and futile it would be to try and make the environment static. Leaders of the modern environmental movement are constantly selling the meme that there is a ‘right way’ for the environment to be, and any change to that is a crime against Mother Earth. Since ‘Mother Earth’ has always changed, arguing for stasis is the true crime against the planet.
2. WUWT readers rarely get emotional about the science (although they do not necessarily have the same restraint when talking about people.) Their dispassionate discussions of the physical science of the atmosphere stands in sharp contrast to the constant appeals to emotion of the modern environmentalists. The complexity of the environment demands a dispassionate analysis of the available information in order to make the best decisions. Emotional decision making based on feelings over analysis will almost always result in poor decisions that inevitably do more harm to the environment (and humanity) than good.
3. Modern environmentalism fits the definition of noble cause corruption. History shows us countless examples of noble cause corruption and the dominant results of movements misguided by this mindset. Curiously, they usually create the opposite of their expressed desires. Communism promoted the end of poverty, but made everyone poor. Nazi’s trumpeted the preservation of the Fatherland, but nearly destroyed it. Pol Pot rallied the Cambodian peasants with cries for the end of corruption, then turned them into heartless murderers. I have no doubt, that if modern environmentalists had their way on the issue of climate change, the natural environment and humanity would suffer far more, than if they did nothing.
4. Economics is the process of finding the most efficient use of the available resources. Carbon mitigation as it stands today, promotes less efficiency across the energy board. It is economically unsound, which is a gentle way of saying that people will suffer. When people are suffering their concerns for the environment drop way down, as the latest recession has shown. If the goal is to keep environmental awareness in peoples minds, it is foolish to fill their minds with worry over staying warm and having enough to eat.
These are just some of the reasons why modern environmentalism is actually anti-environment, and that the realist readers of WUWT are far more environmentally friendly than people like James Hansen and the leaders of Greenpeace et al.
On the whole, I appreciate this essay, but agree with others that the part absolving arsonists of terrorism is misguided.
geoffchambers says:
March 9, 2013 at 10:58 pm
In “Bowling for Columbine”, Moore spliced scenes of Charlton Heston speaking in different venues years apart to make it appear that he was rubbing salt in the wound after Columbine. Watch it, and see how Heston effects instantaneous wardrobe changes during his speech.
No, Mikey is not ashamed of anything.
SandyInLimousin says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:12 am
“You’re very misguided in thinking that. I give you as examples of not terrorising by burning empty buildings.”
Here’s another.
Here’s another one used in the same way for political gain, though the building was occupied at the time, and several hundred people actually died.
George Montgomery says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:45 am
“It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval.”
Confidence intervals are a much abused statistical tool. Calculation of a confidence interval requires assumption of a particular statistical model. Although many random variables do, in fact, conform to common distributions, many do not, and the calculations made assuming a distribution which does not apply are garbage.
Thanks for even more comments. I’ll answer a few, but then I must tear myself away.
Michael Hart, re my first sentence: “Do you realize yet what a foolish way that was to begin what might otherwise have been a good article?”. Yes, I do.
However, I maintain my view that ‘terror’ means harming a human being, or creating genuine fear of physical harm in a rational person. Not an empty building.
Mike McMillan (above) epitomises the contradictions of conservatism. He supports torture and the death penalty, then hints that he didn’t like what happened at Waco in ’93. He cheerleads the vindictive, sadistic, state-worshipping aspects of US culture, then complains about the consequences.
DirkH answers Sam the First’s call for censorship.
Johanna addresses me in my native language, but I don’t agree with her. I think if you look into the cases you’ll find there really was no danger to people. Even the prosecutors agreed. There was no-one dossing in half built ski resorts or isolated research buildings. To get the ‘terrorism’ word to stick, the prosecution got someone to say, when she arrived at her burned-down lab in the morning, she felt scared. If law derives from feelings, we’re all in trouble.
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
Sure, until it goes out of control and causes a wildfire, but then their hearts were in the right place, no? I’m sure they think spiking trees to prevent logging is ok too. They warned the loggers didn’t they? Or years go by and no one remembers the spike was there. Not their fault that their chainsaw hit the spike and the logger was horribly injured. How about the burning of the ski lodge at Vail?. Hey, it was empty right. Only cost the greedy corporation 12 mill. When you start thinking that breaking the law is equivalent to civil disobedience all you do is wind up with Weathermen and the Unabomber. You really should review the acts of your so called “extreme environmentalists” before making such ignorant statements. And maybe do a better job of reviewing your own moral standards.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:05 am
“However, I maintain my view that ‘terror’ means harming a human being, or creating genuine fear of physical harm in a rational person. Not an empty building.”
If there were not fear of ultimate physical harm, it would have little persuasive effect. If someone is willing to brazenly assault and violently destroy your property, how do you determine the line at which he will stop?
Here is another case of arson used as a terrorist tactic from this morning’s news.
“””””…..Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies……”””””
And unlike many “environmentalists”, I have environmental sympathies.
I think I might try and make up a list of regular WUWT (skeptic) posters who appear to me to NOT have environmental sympathies.
Well here it is…………”””””
>…………………………….<
….."""""
Well that's about all I can come up with so far. I even think there are some luke warmers, and some raving (figuratively) warmers, who DO have environmental sympathies.
But there's clearly a set, whose agenda is control (by them) and has nothing to do with bettering the environment, or the well being of the world's people.
I just hope that when they come home from their taxpayer funded "work", that their mother runs out from underneath the verandah, and bites them on the leg.
Rod: you have not addressed the issue of destruction of private property. Think of it this way: if someone determined, say from your post, that you were complicit with people who are engaging in acts that destroy private property of great value to people, and consequently conducted a secret campaign to destroy things of value that you own or utilize– say your car, your house or your barn, or the office where you work– would you feel 1. afraid? 2. terrified? 3. depressed? 4. disgusted? 5. victimized? Or a combination of all of the above?
terrorist use violence or destruction to further their political/ideological views.
arsonists burn for money/sake of burning.
when an environmentalist burns a building to make a point its terrorism.
Anthony, I am saddened that you gave this nit wit a forum. I think it diminishes your brand.
If that were true, then why do it? The answer is because the perpetrators want to terrorize the community and assert power and control over others.
This is like arguing that burning a cross doesn’t hurt anyone so therefore its perfectly ok. What a load of total crap. I can’t imagine what kind of a pathetic imbecile could hold such views. And the fact that you would allow such a febrile defecation to darken the space on your otherwise excellent blog is baffling to me.
In my experience much of the left is motivated by an infantile, “stick it to the man” pathology. Radical “environmentalism” is just an excuse to engage in acts of anti-social behavior directed towards “the man”. I know this personality type. I see it in many “environmentalists”. And I see it on full display here.
I didn’t bother to read the rest of it.
jim2 says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:01 am
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism”
What a load of crap. Burning down someone else’s property is wrong on so many levels! This says a lot about your lack of ethics.
Oh come on. You included the quote yourself. He didn’t say it wasn’t “wrong” – on any number of levels. What he said was that it isn’t “terrorism.”
That was the problem I had.
A quick Google search gives a definition of terrorism as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” I’d say that wilfully burning down someone’s property – empty or not – is pretty violent and certainly intimidating. It is terrorism.
mpaul says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:02 am
Anthony, I am saddened that you gave this nit wit a forum. I think it diminishes your brand. . . .
——————————————
Disagree, mpaul. I think it’s good to have these views aired out and responded to by adults. I suspect Rod’s views are secretly held by a lot of young people who are resentful of the cultural legacy they’ve inherited. This is mostly because they grossly misunderstand civilization and how it developed and have been conditioned by their respective educational systems to despise it. Many of these young people don’t own much of value themselves, and consequently don’t know the value of things struggled for and duly earned. In general, their survival and the means for it have mostly been provided for them by caring and protective adults. Some, unfortunately, never outgrow their destructive urges. Bill Ayers, Obama’s ghostwriter, comes to mind.
I’m not saddened he/they have been given a forum. I’m saddened they think that way and can’t see beyond their own limited perspective.
Geoff [Chambers] wrote:
No, that was the conceit of the first film. The film was about Michael Moore attempting to humiliate those he mistakenly believes are the cause of poverty, dislocation and squalor in his home town. It was, in other words, all about him celebrating and his virulent brand of confiscatory socialism, which is, of course, utterly dependent on the capitalism he despises.
Correction: that last post was directed at geoffchambers. Will Geoff Sherrington ever forgive me? :~}
Mr. McLaughlin,
You displayed some original thought, but so much of what you have to say, especially in comments, is cliche- riddled. Why let others think for you?